Back
1984 Supreme(Ori) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.C. Misra, J.
NARASINGHA SATPATHY AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
LABANYA DIBYA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 93 of 1978
Decided On : 25-07-1984
P. Kar, for the Appellant; S.S. Rao, for Y.S.N. Murty, for the Respondent
Proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are not quasi-criminal in nature but are essentially civil proceedings designed to enforce or execute an order.
Headnote:
ORDER 39 RULE 2A CPC - INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 1 CPC - VIOLATION - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: 1. Order 39 Rule 1 CPC - Temporary injunctions. 2. Order 39 Rule 2A CPC - Consequences of disobedience of injunction. SUMMARY: - The court held that proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are not quasi-criminal in nature but are essentially civil proceedings designed to enforce or execute an order. - The court found that the evidence on record did not establish that the appellants had violated the order of injunction and set aside the order of the lower court attaching their property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of violating an order of injunction by cutting and removing paddy from a disputed land. The lower court found them guilty and ordered their property to be attached for one year. The appellants appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence on record did not establish that the appellants had violated the order of injunction and set aside the order of the lower court attaching their property.
Issues: Whether the appellants had violated the order of injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are not quasi-criminal in nature but are essentially civil proceedings designed to enforce or execute an order. The court also found that the evidence on record did not establish that the appellants had violated the order of injunction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court attaching the appellants' property.
JUDGMENT :
P.C. Misra, J. - This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC against the order dated 13-2-1978 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1977 allowing the prayer under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code and directing the property of the Appellants to be kept under attachment for one year and in case of further breach the property so attached to be sold to compensate the Respondents.
2. One Biswanath Satapathy, husband of Respondent No. 1, and father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed O.S. No. 100 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, praying for partition of his interest in the suit property. In the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC (hereafter 'the Code') was filed by the Plaintiffs playing for an order of injunction against the Defendants restraining them from cutting and carrying away the paddy crops from the suit land and an ad interim order of injunction was passed on 30-11-1976 to the same effect. The said order is said to have been served on the Defendants on 2-12-1976. Thereafter an application was filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code alleging violation of the order of injunction by the Defendants and praying for taking suitable action as provided under law against them. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 42 of 1977. The present Appellants in their counter denied the allegation about the cutting and removal of the paddy on 9-12-1976. According to them, on a false report by present Respondent No. 3, some of the present Appellants were arrested on 6-12-1976 and in order to get them released the other Appellants remained busy at the police-station and they could not have cut and removed away the paddy as alleged in the said misc. case. On a consideration of the evidence of both the sides, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the present Appellants had cut and removed the paddy from the disputed land violating the prohibitory order and consequently he allowed the misc. case and directed that the property of the present Appellants shall be kept under attachment for a period of one year from the date of his order and in the event of further breach, the court would sell away sufficient extent of the property so attached to compensate the wrong done to the present Respondents.
3. At the out-set the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Babulal Parekh Vs. Lachminarayan Swalram and Others for the contention that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code are of quasi-criminal nature and the order punishing the persons violating the order of injunction should be treated as an order in a criminal case. The aforesaid contention does not appear to me to be a correct approach of the law. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, indicated:
...undoubtedly proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2(3) (corresponding to Order 39, Rule 2-A after the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure) CPC have a punitive aspect as is evident from the contemner being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the order....
Irrespective of whether the proceeding under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code is quasi-criminal in nature or essentially a civil proceeding, the present Appellants could not be held guilty for violating the order of injunction unless the allegations made against them are proved to the satisfaction, of the Court. The order of injunction is said to have been violated on 9-12-1976 whereas the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was filed on 2-2-1977. No acceptable explanation whatsoever has been furnished explaining the delay in filing the application. The original Plaintiff Biswanath Satapathy admittedly died on 11-12-1976 in a hospital. After his death, the present Respondents were substituted in his place in the t
