Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Balkar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and underlying suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning evidentiary weight and disobedience. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial assessment of evidence and service proof. (Para 5) |
| 4. requirement of strict proof for contempt proceedings. (Para 6) |
| 5. dismissal of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nakodar, has been dismissed. The said order of the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction at Nakodar against respondent No. 1, Gurnam Singh, seeking restraint against him from raising construction and encroaching upon the common street. Along with the suit, an application for grant of interim relief was filed. On 02.09.2016, upon consideration of the said application, the learned Trial Court directed the p
Proceedings for willful disobedience of an injunction require strict proof of both the respondent's prior knowledge of the order and the intentional nature of the violation. Digital evidence, such as....
The legal point established is that the scope and effect of injunction orders must be interpreted strictly, and the party complaining of disobedience must establish that the order is unambiguous and ....
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC allows proceedings against non-parties/strangers who aid/abet injunction breach with knowledge; trial court determines facts like knowledge and disobedience; no bar to summoning ....
The court emphasized the necessity of enforcing interim orders and provided guidance on using police assistance for compliance in cases of ongoing violations.
Courts must ensure the enforcement of status quo orders, exercising inherent powers as necessary, especially when other remedies are inadequate.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate willful violation of an interim order, which was not established in this case.
Quasi-criminal proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC require proof beyond doubt of willful injunction disobedience; appellate courts cannot reverse trial credibility findings absent perversity, esp....
Power of Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is to preserve subject matter of lis and to maintain status quo, regarding suit property, as, it exists on date of inception of lis between parties.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
