1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.3.2007, whereby the Court below has disallowed the application of the petitioners seeking deletion of their names from the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

The necessary facts are as under :-

2. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 39 rule 2A CPC against the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4. The grievance put-forth in the said application is that the permanent injunction order dated 6.4.1993 is not followed by the non-applicants. The Court below issued notices on the said application preferred under Order 39 rule 2A. In turn, the petitioners preferred an application under section 151 CPC on 14.2.2007 contending that in original injunction order dated 6.4.1993, the petitioners were not party. In execution proceeding or in application under Order 39 rule 2A they cannot be impleaded as party. The other side filed reply and contended that when the civil suit was filed, the present petitioners were ten and seven years of age respectively. Since they were minor at that point of time, they were not impleaded. However, now they have attained majority and creating hindrance in execution of the injunction order dated 6.4.1993. It is further contended that present petitioners are sons of non-applicant No.1. The Court below by impugned order rejected the said application dated 14.2.2007.

3. Shri M.L.Bansal relied on 2002 (I) MPWN 219 (Rajkumar v. Tankhram) and submits that present petitioners were not party in the original suit and, therefore, no injunction order was passed against the petitioners. Since petitioners were not party in civil suit, the Court below has erred in rejecting their application and continued them as a party in the proceedings under Order 39 rule 2A CPC.

4. Per contra, Shri A.V.Bharadwaj, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the order and relied on AIR 1967 AP 219 (R. Narapa Reddy v. Jagarlamudi Chandramouli and others).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioners are dependents of defendants of original civil suit. No doubt, in Rajkumar (supra), this Court opined that under Order 39 rule 2-A CPC, only those persons can be punished for committing breach of injunction order who were party to the suit in which order of injunction was passed. However, the aforesaid aspect was again dealt with by this Court in 2006(4) M.P.L.J. 595 (Chhagan Lal Jaiswal through LRs Pooran Chand Jaiswal and others v. Kamal Chand Jain through LRs Gulab Bai and others. This Court after considering AIR 1968 Rajasthan 212 (Rattu v. Mala and another), 1984 MPWN 28 (Sitaram Sharma (Dr.) v. Kishna) and AIR 1961 SC 221 (State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari) opined as under :-

A. “It is true that an order of temporary injunction is to be normally issued against the parties to the suit. However, power of Court to issue temporary injunction is not confined merely against the plaintiff or the defendant alone. Such an order may be made against any person who is present before the Court and is, in the opinion of the Court, causes interference/obstruction in the exercise of lawful rights of the plaintiff.

Court is well empowered to take cognizance of disobedience or breach 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 is granted which obviously included an order of temporary injunction granted under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. The insertion of rule 2A is intended to seek provision of disobedience or breach of injunction which was earlier available under Sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 2 of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. Thus, it is not correct to say that the breach of an order of injunction issued under section 151, Civil Procedure Code cannot be taken into cognizance under Order 39, rule 2-A, Ci