Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Jai Parkash & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kapoor Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 5654 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-12-2019
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent
The purpose of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is to prevent the violation of decorum of the court and maintain the majesty of law, regardless of the final outcome of the suit or proceedings.
Headnote:
Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC - Disobedience of Court Order - 10.04.2009 - Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, Rita Datta vs. Rajiv Mehta and others, Babu Lal vs. Deep Chand and others, Kirpal Singh and others vs. Satish Kumar Sabharwal and other, Dalip Singh & another vs. Balwinder Singh & another - The court discussed the application of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC in the context of disobedience of court orders and referenced several cases to support its decision. The court emphasized that the provision aims to prevent the violation of decorum of the court and maintain the majesty of law, regardless of the final outcome of the suit or proceedings. The judgment in Kanwar Singh Saini's case was particularly influential in shaping the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the petitioners for raising construction in violation of a court order dated 10.04.2009. The trial court found the petitioners guilty and sentenced them to simple imprisonment. The lower Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal and reduced the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the impugned orders, but allowed the respondent to execute the decree for permanent injunction granted by the lower Appellate Court.
Issues: Disobedience of court order, application of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, termination of rigour of disobedience with the decision of the suit
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the purpose of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is to prevent the violation of decorum of the court and maintain the majesty of law, regardless of the final outcome of the suit or proceedings. The judgment in Kanwar Singh Saini's case was particularly influential in shaping the court's decision.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent was allowed to execute the decree for permanent injunction granted by the lower Appellate Court.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the orders dated 06.09.2014 and 06.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhiwani and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhiwani in the appeal against the aforesaid orders dated 06.09.2014 and 06.10.2014.
2. Perusal of the record would show that the respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the petitioners in the context of disobedience of the court order dated 10.04.2009, vide which both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding construction over the suit property. The said order was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 17.04.2010. Respondent alleged that despite the order of status quo, the petitioners raised new construction. The application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was filed against seven persons. Only Jai Parkash, Vikas and Smt. Santra contested the application.
3. The trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2014 held the petitioner and others (respondents No.1 to 5 before the trial Court) guilty for raising construction in violation of order of status quo dated 10.04.2009. Vide order dated 06.10.2014, the petitioners were ordered to be sentenced for seven days simple imprisonment. The orders dated 06.09.2014 and 06.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhiwani were assailed in the appeal before the lower Appellate Court.
4. The lower Appellate Court vide order dated 08.07.2019 partly accepted the appeal and the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment from opening of the Court till rising of the Court from 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on the date to be fixed by the Court.
5. The petitioners have come forward to assail the aforesaid orders on the premise that the suit itself was dismissed on merits at a later stage, therefore, the rigour of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would terminate with the decision of the suit itself.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi. 2011(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 402: Rita Datta vs. Rajiv Mehta and others. 2019(2) PLR 292, Babu Lal vs. Deep Chand and others. 2016(2) PLR 485: Kirpal Singh and others vs. Satish Kumar Sabharwal and other, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 787 and Dalip Singh & another vs. Balwinder Singh & another, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 527 in support of his contentions.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have even misbehaved with the local Commissioner and the order of status quo was intentionally flouted. The petitioners do not deserve any leniency. Even after termination of the suit proceedings, the rigour of disobedience shall not vanish away. Even if, the interim order was subsequently vacated or the suit was dismissed, it cannot justify the disobedience of the interim order by the petitioners. In the instant case, even the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been accepted and the appeal being continuation of the suit proceedings has to be appreciated which would show that case of the plaintiff/respondent was on legal parameters and the same has been accepted by the lower Appellate Court while decreeing the suit at appellate stage.
8. Learned counsel by relying upon Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others. (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 261; Tayabbhai M. Baaarsarwalla and another vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others. (1997) 3 SCC 443; Pratap Mistrv, son of late Hari vs. Sita Ram Mistrv, son of late Jodhi Mistrv & Anr.. 2013(7) R.C.R. (Civil) 2015 and Mrs. Freny Rustumii and Ors. vs. M/s Rustumii Developments A Read.. Bangalore and Anr.. 2011(38) R.C.R. (Civil) 640 submitted that the very purpose of the provision under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is to prevent violation of decorum of Court and maintain majesty of law. It has nothing to do with the final order passed in the suit/proceedings as the same stands on different footing. The defaulting party cannot have premium
