Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J. (Oral):- Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurgaon whereby application dated 14.05.2003 (Annexure P-4) moved by the petitioner for dismissal of proceedings under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC, has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are to the effect that respondent No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction praying that the petitioner and proforma respondents herein be restrained from collecting building material for raising any sort of construction until and unless suit land is partitioned by metes and bounds. During the pendency of suit, interim order dated 04.10.2015 was passed by the trial Court restraining the parties from raising any sort of construction. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC on 26.05.2005 for violation of order dated 04.10.2015. The prayer in the suit became redundant after partition of suit land by the revenue authorities. Thereafter, the respondent made statement before the trial Court that he does not want to pursue the present suit and withdraws the same and accordingly, the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.2011. The petitioner moved application for dismissal of proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurgaon. Hence, this revision.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2011. It is settled law that once a suit is dismissed or decreed, interim order, if any, merges into the final order and the interim order stands nullified automatically. The provisions of Rule 2-A CPC are meant for enforcing an ad interim injunction and not for punishing the person alleged to be guilty of disobedience of such order and, therefore, initiation or continuation of the proceedings under the said Rule would not be justified after the ad interim injunction stands nullified consequent upon dismissal of the suit.

5. In Rachhpal Singh vs. Gurdarshan Singh 1985 (1) PLR 2014, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

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 Rule 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. Rani Sonabati Kumari (supra). A contrary view had been taken by Harbans Lal, J. in M/s. Bharaj Manufacturing Co. (Regd) v. Jai Pal (supra) 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 rule 2-A provides that in the case of disobedience of any injunction granted under rule 1 or rule 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 party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. From the combined reading of the provisions of these