The power under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC is punitive in nature and should be exercised with great caution and responsibility. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in cases of disobedience or breach of injunction orders.

ORDER :

1. The applicants have filed present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. challenging the order dated 7.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khategaon, District-Dewas in Misc. Appeal No. 5/2017, whereby reversing the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Khategaon, District-Dewas in MJC No. 20/2014.

2. The non-applicant No. 1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the applicants with respect to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 632/5 area 1.028 hectare and Survey No. 654/1 area 1.320 hectare situated at village Sandalpur, Tehsil Khategaon, District-Dewas. Along with the said suit, the non-applicant No. 1 has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 praying therein for restraining the applicants from making any interference in the possession of the non-applicant No. 1 over the suit land. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 29.10.2013. The said civil suit was subsequently, decreed by the trial court on 30.6.2014. Thereafter, the non-applicant No. 1 has moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC before the trial court stating therein that despite being well aware of the order of temporary injunction issued against the applicants, they tried to disturb the possession of the non-applicant No. 1 over the suit land on 5.9.2014. By way of the said application, a prayer was made by the non-applicant No. 1 to send the present applicants in civil imprisonment for disobeying and committing breach of the order of temporary injunction. The aforesaid prayer made by the non-applicant No. 1 was opposed by the present applicants by filing a reply in the matter. As per the reply, the applicants have not disobeyed the order of temporary injunction. The land of the present applicants and the non-applicant No. 1 is adjacent to each other without there being any boundary mark; therefore, taking shelter of the order of temporary injunction, the non-applicant No. 1 wants to dispossess the present applicants from their own land. The trial court vide order dated 30.1.2017 has dismissed the said application. The non-applicant No. 1 had challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC before the Additional District Judge. The learned Judge vide order dated 7.5.2018 has allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved with the said order, the applicants have filed the present civil revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, final decree has been passed by the court below, therefore, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC is not maintainable. He further submits that on the date of alleged disobedience of the order, the order of temporary injunction was not effective. After final disposal of the suit, the order of grant of temporary injunction has come to an end. He further submits that, while considering the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A the allegation made in the application has to be proved beyond doubt because any action under Order 39 Rule 2-A is punitive in nature. He further submits that, the learned appellate court has reversed the findings given by the trial Court without any cogent reason.

4. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Seema Dubey vs. Prakash Dhirawani, 2004 (4) MPLJ 518 and the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) SCC 665.

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports that order passed by the court below. He submits that, the order of temporary injunction was passed in favour of the applicant No. 1 on 29.10.2013 and the interim injunction order was violated on 5.2.2014 and the civil suit was decreed on 30.6.2014 and on the date when the violation o