A person who is not a party to the suit but is an agent, servant, or workman of a party against whom an injunction has been passed can be proceeded against for violating the injunction.

( 1 ) IN a fight between son the appellant and father (respondent No. 1), the role of respondent Nos. 2 and' 3 has been described to be that of abettors in the act of alleged violation of order of injunction passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. The appellant as plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 278 of 1987 before the learned Subordinate Judge praying for a decree of partition of the suit property, claiming one-third share in respect of the ground floor and full interest in respect of the first floor. Respondent No. 1 is defendant No. 1, and his wife is defendant No. 2. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'cpc') seeking temporary injunction, wherein respondent No. 1 was impleaded as the sole opposite party. The prayer in essence was to restrain the said opposite party, defendant No. 2 and agents from alienating the property in any manner till final disposal of the suit. By order dated 21-10-1987 an order of ad interim injunction was passed ex parte against defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and agents restraining them from alienating the suit property in any manner. Notwithstanding such order of injunction, the property was sold by registered sale deed dated 19-5-1988. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the defendants avoided to take notice of the suit and the misc. case, notice was given in a newspaper giving details of the proceeding on 28-1-1988. Even after such publication, the defendant No. 1 did not appear either in the misc. case or in the suit. After the ad interim order of injunction was passed, a notice was given in the newspaper on 11-3-1988, for information of the general public and any intending purchaser of the suit schedule properties, to the effect that there was an order of injunction in respect of the said properties. Since the sale took place on 19-5-1988, an application for appropriate action against defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1), the purchaser (respondent No. 2) and her husband (respondent No. 3) was filed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that respondent No. 1 had in fact violated the order of injunction, and directed attachment of his property valued at Rs. 10,000/ -. So far as other two opposite parties in the misc. case are concerned, it was held that there was no violation by them, as it has not been proved that they had knowledge about the order of injunction.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has urged that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge is erroneous, as the effect of the evidence of an advocate who clearly stated about knowledge of respondents 2 and 3 has not been considered in its proper perspective, and similarly the effect of notice in the newspaper has not been considered. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 on the other hand submitted that the restraint was on sale and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation so far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned. It is also submitted that they were not parties in the misc. case, where the impugned order was passed, and therefore, the proceeding was misconceived so far as they are concerned.

( 3 ) I shall first deal with the submission whether a person who is not a party to the proceeding can also be proceeded against for his alleged act of violating the order of injunction. The word 'person' as appearing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2a of Order 39 is wide enough to engulf a person, who is an agent, a servant and a-workman. Rule 2a was introduced by the Amending Act of 1976. It takes the place of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 2 of Order 39. The said sub-rules have been deleted from rule 2 by the said Amending Act. In addition to reproducing the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 2, the new Rule 2a provides for the breach of an order of injunction passed under Rule I of the said Order, and it also provides penalty for the breach or disobedience of an order of injunction made under Rule 1