A person aggrieved by the infringement of an injunction order passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC should move the court for initiating action under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC, which provides for alternative punishments for disobedience of an injunction order.

G.R. Majithia, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of a Single Judge of this Court convicting the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The facts :-

2. Nihala and others have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Singh and others from interfering in their peaceful possession. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and the same came up for hearing before the trial Judge, Kaithal, on 30.4.1983 and the following other was passed :-

"Present : Shri R.K. Gaur, Advocate for the plaintiffs.

Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on P.F. copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 17.5.1983. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs/applicants have filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for issue of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint during the pendency of the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is based on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land in capacity as lessees under defendant No. 10, vide registered lease deed dated 3.4.1972 for a term of 15 years running from khari 19.83. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit and copies of jamabandi for the year 1980-81. Certified copy of the decree sheet in Civil Suit No. 1472 of the 1972 dated 1411.1972 has also been produced whereby the lease hold rights were transferred in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants No. 5 to 9 and others. Now the defendants No. 1 to 4 are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are hereby restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaintiff till 17.5.1983, plaintiffs to comply under Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code".

3. Pritam Singh s/o Dongar filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against appellants Bhalla, Ram Kala, Teka, Ram Pal sons of Shistu, Inder Singh s/o Ram Pal, Chincha s/o Jaggi, Chandgi s/o Momam and Dhari s/o Sakha Ram (appellants No. 1 to 8). Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules and 1 and 2 was also filed, and the same came up for hearing before SUb Judge Ist Class, Kaithal, on 7.5.1983 and the following order was passed :-

"Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on P.F. Copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 25.5.1983.

Simultaneously, the plaintiff/applications has filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for issue of temporary injection. The suit of the plaintiffs based on the ground that hand his brother Ram Singh had been and are cultivating the land as lessees under defendant No. 1 for the last more than 20 years and that there is no order of ejectment or dispossessing from any competent authority. Now the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants many a time to desist themselves from their illegal activities. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit, copy of Khasra girdawaries and other documents on record. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally or to cut the harvest or to remove the wheat crop from the land in dispute till further orders. Plaintiffs to comply under Order 39, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code"

4. Prita