A suit for damages for disobedience of an interim injunction is maintainable.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff in the suit and arises in the following circumstances

( 2 ) THE plaintiff had brought a suit No. 361 of 1946 in the Court of II Munsif, Bulandshahr on the allegation that he was a Khudkasht-holder of six plots, four of which had been taken possession of by the defendant and in regard to two of which there was an apprehension that the defendant would interfere with the plaintiffs possession. The suit was for possession and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession qua the two plots.

( 3 ) AFTER filing the above suit, the plaintiff obtained an interim injunction directing the defendant to refrain from interfering with the said two plots.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to the issue of the interim injunction, the plaintiff moved the learned Munsif that there had been a disobedience of the interim injunction order.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif accepted the allegation of the plaintiff and, acting under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3), C. P. C. , attached some property belonging to the defendant. The attachment subsisted for a period of six months whereafter it was taken off presumably because the disobedience had come to an end.

( 6 ) THEN the plaintiff filed the present suit No. 103 of 1947 in the Court of the Additional Munsif. His allegation was that the defendant, by preventing him from cultivating the two plots in respect of which the interim injunction had been issued and by disobedience of that interim injunction, had caused a loss of Rs. 200/- to him.

( 7 ) THE defendant resisted the plaintiffs claim] on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and that the amount of damages claimed was excessive.

( 8 ) THE learned Munsif held that the suit was not maintainable. He, however, assessed the damage caused at Rs. 75/ -.

( 9 ) THERE was an appeal to the Court below which also held that the suit was not maintainable. On the question of damages there is no finding of the Court below reversing the assessment made by the learned Munsif.

( 10 ) THE Court below was of the view that the plaintiffs remedy against the defendants disobedience of an injunction order was provided for under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (3), C. P. C. , which empowered the Court to deal with the person who had disobeyed the injunction order by attaching his property or detaining him in civil prison and that there was no other remedy available in respect of any damage which the plaintiff may have sustained as a result of the action of the defendant in preventing him from cultivating the two plots in Question.

( 11 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff and it is submitted that the view of the Court below cannot be sustained and that the plaintiff had a right to recover damage from the defendant by means of a suit.

( 12 ) THERE are some sections in the Civil Procedure Code which are relevant in considering whether such a suit, as has been filed by the plaintiff, would lie.

( 13 ) SECTION 94 of the Code runs as follows : "in order to prevent the ends of justice from, being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show the cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;

(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property ba attached and sold;

(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;

(e) make such other interlocutory orders as appear to the Court to be just and convenient. " section 95 of the Code is as under :

" (1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been