Proceedings under O.39, R.2A, C.P.C., are meant for enforcing an ad interim injunction and not for punishing the person guilty of disobedience. Once the injunction is vacated, there is no basis for continuing the contempt proceedings.

S.P.GOYAL, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of three connected Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2331 of 1983, 2344 and 2345 of 1983 which are directed against a common order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dt. Aug. 17, 1983.

2. In a suit filed by Gurdarshan Singh, ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from transferring the possession and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from alienating the house in dispute was passed on Feb. 26, 1977. During the pendency of the suit, Rachhpal Singh and Swaran Singh defendants executed the sale deed in favour of Jaswant Singh on June 27, 1980. Consequently, Gurdarshan Singh filed an application under O.39, R.2A, C.P.C., for initiating contempt proceedings against the vendors and the vendee. Before that application was disposed of he withdrew his suit on Sept. 25, 1980, the same having become infructuous. The trial Court held Swaran Singh and Jaswant Singh guilty of the contempt of court and committed them to civil imprisonment for one month. Jaswant Singh, however, was held to have not violated the order. Three appeals were filed against the order of the trial Court, two by Swaran Singh and Rachhpal Singh against their conviction and the third by Gurdarshan Singh against Jaswant Singh. The appeal filed by Gurdarshan Singh was allowed and Jaswant Singh was also committed to civil imprisonment for one month and the other appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by the impugned order. Hence these three petitions by the contemners.

3. The legality of the impugned order has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily on the ground that no order under the said R.2-A could be passed when the ad interim injunction stated to have been violated was no more in existence. Reliance for this submission was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar V/s. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221. A contrary view had been taken by Harbans Lal, J. in M/s Bharaj Manufacturing Co. (Regd.) V/s. Jai Pal (1980) 82 Pun LR 406 without noticing the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The matter otherwise also being of public importance, I referred the same to a Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement. This is how these cases have been laid before us.

4. Sub-rule (1) of R.2-A provides that in the case of disobedience of any injunction granted under R.1 or R.2 or breach of any of its terms on which the injunction was granted or order made, the court may order the property of the person guilty of such indiscipline or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the court directs his release. Sub-rule (2) lays down that no attachment made under the said rule shall remain in force for more than one year at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured part and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. From the combined reading of the provisions of these two sub-rules, it appears that their purpose is the enforcement of the injunction and not the punishment for its disobedience. From the phraseology used in the said rule, it is further evident that detention in the civil prison and attachment of the property are to continue for a specified period and that too only during the continuance of the disobedience or the breach. In the case of detention in the civil prison, the court is empowered to release the person guilty of disobedience or breach even prior to the expiry of the maximum period of three months and obviously it can be ordered only if the disobedience or breach discontinues. Similarly, attachment of the property can not remain in force for more than one year and has to be withdrawn if any time prior thereto the disobedience discont