Order 39 Rule 2A CPC allows proceedings against non-parties/strangers who aid/abet injunction breach with knowledge; trial court determines facts like knowledge and disobedience; no bar to summoning such persons.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“A. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding under Order 39, Rule 2-A vide C.M.A. No.421-6 of 2021 titled as Pushpa Devi Versus Ram Pyari & others vide Annexure P-1, including summoning order qua the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in the proceedings initiated by the respondents herein under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , the present petitioner has been impleaded as a party. Feeling aggrieved by issuance of the process against him in the said proceedings, he has approached this Court, praying for the relief mentioned hereinabove.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (Annexure P-1) and submitted that a perusal thereof demonstrates that there is no allegation against the petitioner which can be said to be an allegation of willful disobedience of any direction passed by the learned Court below. He submitted that the petitioner was not a party in the civil suit and all that is alleged against the petitioner is that on the day when the other parties purportedly disobeyed the orders passed by the Court, dated 28.08.2021, in terms whereof, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo, the police officials instead of stopping the digging work being carried out by the party respondents, did not rely upon the version of the applicants about the interim order passed by the Court and threatened the family members of the applicants to remove their Car from the suit land, which was parked in the Courtyard of the house of the applicants. The police officials remained at the spot till 6:00 p.m., but did not stop the digging work of the suit land by the respondents, who violated the status-quo order. The police officials also instigated the respondents and no action was taken against the driver of the JCB. He submitted that these allegations are bald allegations and fact of the matter is that the petitioner happened to be at the site on the basis of a complaint which was received at Police Station, Jhandutta from the proforma respondents in this case, dated 28.08.2021 and he reached spot with a view to maintain the law and order. Learned Counsel submitted that the daughter of respondent No.1 started misbehaving with the police officials at the spot and proceedings under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code were also carried out and thereafter, the family members of respondent No.1 gave an undertaking that they will remove the Car from the suit land before 5:00 p.m. on 29.08.2021. He submitted that the police officials including other respondents asked respondent No.1 to produce the copy of injunction order, but the same was not produced and in the absence of any injunction order being shown to the petitioner, the allegations levelled against him were not sustainable.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the present petitioner not only disobeyed the Court orders, but he also instigated the offending respondents, who were violating the Court orders. He submitted that the petitioner was there at the behest of the other party and his act was to assist the other party in violation of Court order. Accordingly, he submitted that as there was no infirmity in issuance of the process, present petition be dismi