1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by 16th Additional District Judge, Indore.

2. Facts of the case reveal that an application was preferred in Civil Suit under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC and an interim order was passed on 8.11.2006 directing the parties not to alienate the property in question, i.e. land bearing Survey No.96 situated in village Betma, Tahsil Depalpur. The dispute was between the family members and during the pendency of the injunction order, the land was sold and therefore, an application was preferred under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC. The trial Court has held the respondents guilty of committing a breach and a fine of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that the fine of Rs.5,000/- is too meager and the defendant should have been sent to jail.

4. This Court has carefully gone through the Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC which provides a punishment for disobedience or breach of injunction. Order 39 rule 2 reads as under :-

“2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.-(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.

2A. 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 attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.”

5. The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the Court to pass an order of detention of disobeying party or to attach his property. Not only this, it also empowers the Court to take both the steps or to take one of the steps depending upon the facts of the case. In the present case after holding the respondents guilty of committing breach of order dated 8.11.2006, fine of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed. Order 39 rule 2A CPC does not provide for imposition of fine and no judgment of the apex Court has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel appearing for the respondents which empowers the trial Court to impose the fine as has been done by the learned 16th Additional District Judge, Indore. In the case of Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2765, the apex Court in Paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 has held as under :-

“11. At the first blush the above interpretation appeared attractive. But on a closer scrutiny we feel that such interpretation is not sound and it may lead to tenuous results. No doubt the wording as framed in Order 21 rule 32(1) would indicate that in enforcement o