Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
I.P. SINGH, J.
Pratap Narain Pande - Appellant
Versus
Nomita Roy - Respondent
Civil Contempt Petition No, 183 of 1984
Decided on : Aug 30, 1984
CONTEMPT OF COURT - SECTION 10/12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - JURISDICTION, POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COURT - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2-A CPC - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - EFFICACY OF THE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the opposite party, restraining them from interfering with his possession of Sunder Talkies. The court passed an ad-interim injunction order in favor of the petitioner. Despite the injunction order, the opposite parties interfered with the petitioner's possession and ultimately dispossessed him. The petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for action against the opposite parties for disobeying the injunction order. However, the proceedings were delayed due to the dilatory tactics of the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner to enforce the injunction order and restore his possession of Sunder Talkies. The court also held that the exercise of jurisdiction, power, and authority under the Contempt of Courts Act is discretionary and that it would not be appropriate to exercise such jurisdiction when an effective alternative remedy is available.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC to enforce the injunction order and restore his possession of Sunder Talkies. 2. Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction, power, and authority under the Contempt of Courts Act when an effective alternative remedy is available.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner to enforce the injunction order and restore his possession of Sunder Talkies. The court reasoned that the court below was empowered to compel the contemners to rectify their violations and restore the status quo ante, and even to restore possession of Sunder Talkies to the petitioner on the pain of attachment of the contemners' property and sale thereof or the detention of the contemners in civil prison. 2. The court held that the exercise of jurisdiction, power, and authority under the Contempt of Courts Act is discretionary and that it would not be appropriate to exercise such jurisdiction when an effective alternative remedy is available. The court reasoned that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and that the court below could adopt such procedure permissible under law to expedite proceedings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's application under the Contempt of Courts Act and advised the petitioner to proceed with his application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.
J. P. Singh, J.
1. This application under Section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at present is at the stage of admission.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had filed Suit No. 186 of 1983 in the court of 1st Civil Juge, Kanpur against opposite party no. 1 and others for permanent injunction in which on 13-7-83 the learned Civil Judge passed an ad-interim injunction order restraining the opposite party no. 1 and her associates in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over Sunder Talkies and further directed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The said injunction order continued till the present application was moved on 21-5-84. However, despite full knowledge of the said restraining order of the court, the opposite parties interfered with the possession of the petitioner over Sunder Talkies in question, first on 18-7-83 and next on 13-11-83 and ultimately he was dispossessed between 13-11-83 and 18-11-83 when opposite parties no. 6 to 8 put opposite party no. 4 in possession through his wife Rajwati in possession thereof.
It is further alleged in the petition that against interference dated 18-7-83 the petitioner on 27-7-83 had moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC in the court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, for action impleading all the present opposite parties except opposite party no. 6. On the same day the court had issued notices against all the opposite parties of that application. In pursuance of service of the said notices the present opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 had filed their objection before that court.
3. That the said proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC were being delayed on one or other pretext of the opposite parties with the result that opposite party no. 4 with the help of other opposite parties to the present petition was continuing in possession over Sunder Talkies, although nearly a year has gone by since filing of application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. It is contended that the act of the opposite parties clearly amounted to disobedience of the order dated 13-7-83 of the 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur passed in Suit No 186 of 1983. It is, therefore, desired through the present application to initiate Contempt of Courts proceedings under Section 10/12 of the Act by this Court.
4. Since the contempt in question was alleged to have been committed by disobeying the injunction order of the court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur and as a matter of fact, it was disclosed in the petition itself that proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC with respect to the disobedience occurring on 18-7-83 were pending in that court a question cropped up as to whether this court should initiate contempt proceedings concerning the said disobedience dated 18-7-83 as well as second disobedience dated 13/18-11-83 or should leave the matter to be dealt with by the court below whose injunction orders were said to have been violated.
It may here be conceded at the very out-set that Section 10 of the Act confers jurisdiction, power and authority on this court in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it.
5. At the same time Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC provides " Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.-(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property a
AI
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
