SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
Devi Singh – Respondent
CR No. 674 of 2014
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent

The purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is not punitive but to implement interlocutory orders.

Headnote:

Contempt Proceedings - Violation of Court Order - Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC - Sections 151 CPC - [Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Section 151 CPC] - The court discussed the violation of an order dated 14.11.2008 in a civil suit and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC for initiation of contempt proceedings. The court analyzed the purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and concluded that it is not punitive to impose a penalty for default but to implement interlocutory orders.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an application for contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating an order restraining them from alienating the suit land. The trial court held the respondent liable for detention in civil prison, but the appellate court set aside the order and dismissed the application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is not punitive but to implement interlocutory orders. It concluded that there was no loss or injury to any party, and therefore, no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings.

Issues: Violation of court order, maintainability of the application, relief

Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is not punitive but to implement interlocutory orders. The court found no loss or injury to any party, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. - Present matter revolves around an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC by Sita Ram (now revisionist) against Devi Singh and others (now respondent) in all numbering six, for initiation of contempt proceedings for allegations of violation of order dated 14.11.2008 in a civil suit bearing No.248 of 2007 titled 'Sita Ram & others vs. Manga & others' (in short, 'the suit').

2. Upon hearing Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent and perusal of the records.

3. In the said civil suit, an interim stay application was moved and vide order dated 14.11.2008 defendants No.2 to 5 therein were restrained from alienating the suit land till the decision of the suit. The primary claim is that in spite of the stay order being in operation on 20.11.2008 respondents No.1 and 2 executed registered sale deed bearing No.2189 dated 17.12.2008 in respect of the suit land who in spite of having been informed of the stay, went ahead with the execution of the sale deed and so the allegations. The then respondents No.2 and 3 had died leaving the others to face the prosecution for this contempt and who in their plea have denied having any knowledge of the order. The Court below framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the respondent has violated order dated 14.11.2008, as alleged? OPA

2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR

3. Relief.

4. The applicant testified as AW1 and proved documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 while respondent examined Registration Clerk Joginder Rathee as RW1 and Raj Kumar Bhoria Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar as RW2 and proved into evidence documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. It is by orders dated 12.11.2012 the trial Court had passed the following order:-

'In terms of issue No.1, it is held that the respondent No.1 is liable to be detained in civil prison for a term of three months. The application is partly allowed with costs.

Arrest warrants be issued for his presence and committal to civil prison, in a separate file. Petition stands partly allowed, with costs. Memo of costs be prepared and the present file be consigned to record-room, after due compliance."

5. Upon appeal by Devi Lal and others, the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Panipat vide impugned findings dated 25.10.2013 set aside the order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A by the Court below and dismissed the application which is subject matter of present revision petition.

6. Going through the submissions of the two sides, though a civil suit was pending between the parties over declaration of their right, title and interest over the property, subject matter of the suit, wherein application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining defendants therein from alienating the land in question measuring 29 Kanals 9 Marlas was moved and the fact that Devi Singh and Sita Ram are both real brothers being sons of Manga and had inherited the estate of the deceased father Manga and the primary dispute between the siblings was over their share of the suit land who as per the earlier pleadings in the civil suit were entitled to succeed to the estate of Manga in equal shares. It is at this juncture and under this situation one of the parties Devi Singh had transferred his share of the suit land along with mother Shanti and Sunita which is precisely 2 killa numbers. It is not displaced that Manga at the time of execution of the sale deed was very much alive and had received sale consideration and the said sale deed is by Manga and it is not established on the record by any means that this alienation is of the property owned by the applicant and is out of a share to which even the alienator was entitled to get. What is highlighted in the submissions of the two sides is that the order dated 14.11.2008 over which the plea of contempt has been sought to be initiated is not against Manga. Against him, no stay was in operation and which order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top