1986 Supreme(MP) 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V. D. Gyani, J.
Alnoor - Appellant
Vs.
Ramgopal - Respondent
M. A No. 137 of 1986 (I)
Decided On : 24-09-1986

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.39, R.2 – A – injunction granted in appeal – breach thereof – punishable by appellate Court.

       (2) Jurisdiction – wrong mention or non – mention of provision – does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction.

        Short Note

       1. The respondent applied to the Court for taking action against the appellant for disobedience of the aforesaid order of injunction, as the house in question was sold by him in violation of the injunction. He was noticed, but none entered appearance.

       2. Held: The appellant is the son of Rahimbux and also his ‘Mukhtiyar – Aam’ of the executed sale – deed in favour of Madanlal. Indisputably, the appellant had knowledge of the injunction order passed by the Court. It was not disputed before the lower Court nor disputed here.

       3. The only point urged being, whether the appellate Court could pass the impugned order, as according to the appellant's counsel, such proceedings for disobedience could only be initiated by the trial Court. Shri Rege, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in case the appellate Court grants an injunction, the appellate Court has jurisdiction to punish its breach.

       4. On a plain reading of Rule 2 – A of O. 39, C.P.C., it is evident that in case the injunction is granted by the appellate Court, the appellate Court is empowered to punish the breach of injunction. The words "the Court granting the injunction or making the order" are significant. There is no warrant for the narrow construction put by the appellant's counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Shashnhk Mukerjee v. Naraindas (1973 JLJ 677), but this decision does not help the appellant. On the other hand, it propounds that the Court to which a suit is transferred can also punish for disobedience of an injunction granted by another Court from which the suit stands transferred.

       5. It was also urged that as the application was moved under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the matter should have been referred to this Court and the Additional District Judge had no power to order attachment of the property or committing the appellant to civil prison. There is no force in this submission. The application itself purports to have been moved under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with O. 39, R. 2 – A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Merely wrong mention of the section or Don – mention thereof or wrongly clubbing the two different provisions of law, would not result in divesting the Court of its jurisdiction, which it possesses under the law. 1973 JLJ 677 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.