Injunction--Violation of order--The pupose of the provisions is to enforce the orders of the Court and not punish the violators.

Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia , J. (Oral) - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2014, whereby the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt Court Act, 1971 for initiating and punishing the contemnors.

2. The reasoning which prevailed with the Court was that the application had been filed in respect of the order passed 10 years ago and that the status-quo order dated 01.05.2001, which was stated to have been violated was regarding parties to maintain status-quo from raising construction as such. The mother had sold her share to her son Jai Kishan who was the brother of the present appellant and in the absence of any evidence that he had raised any such construction the self serving statement of the appellants and his two witnesses was not reliable. The application was also dismissed on the ground that since the civil appeal itself stood withdrawn on 13.10.2005 and therefore, the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC could not be continued.

3. A perusal of the record would go on to show that suit was filed by respondent No.1 on 02.12.2000 for permanent injunction with relief of mandatory injunction that the defendant should not raise any Pacca wall around Killa No.19, wherein tubewell (joint) and Kothri had existed. The application for temporary injunction had been dismissed on 26.03.2001 and the respondent No.1 herein went in appeal wherein the order dated 01.05.2001 was passed ex parte directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The said order reads as under:-

“Present: Sh K.S. Bhatotia, counsel for the appellant.

This appeal has been received by assignment. It be checked and registered. Notice of the appeal aswell as stay application be issued to the respondents for 21.7.2001 on filing of PF, RC etc.

Heard on the ex parte stay application. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff alongwith respondent No.1 and other proforma respondents are joint owners in possession of the suit land and respondents want to raise construction more than of their share without partition and if they would succeed in doing so, in that event, appellant/plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. In view of the submissions so made by Ld. Counsel for appellant, I feel that there are some arguable points in this appeal and accordingly, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo till further orders.”

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the parties as such sold/alienated the suit property to the respondent herein and thereafter the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.10.2005. Resultantly, after a period of more than six years on 13.12.2011, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A was filed which has thus been dismissed.

5. The reasoning which has been given by the Court below is well justified. The dispute was inter seas such between the family and dispute was only qua raising the construction and because of the mother alienating her share during the pendency of appeal which was filed one of her son, it would not amount as such to violating any orders passed by the Court, which were prayed only to the effect for notraising construction. \

6. In such circumstances, the dispute was inter se the families and the application was filed after the inordinate delay. The purpose of the provisions is to enforce the orders of the Court and not punish the violators.

7. The said view was taken by the Apex Court in ‘State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari’ AIR 1961 SC 221 that the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A cannot be continued after the order of interim injunction has been vacated by virtue of dismissal of the suit. The said view was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Rachhpal Singh Vs. Gurdarshan Singh AIR’ 1985 P&H 299 and thereafter followed in by holding that once the injunction has been vacated by virtue ‘Darshan Singh Vs. Sadha Sing