SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(MP) 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DEEPAK KHOT, J.
Janki Jeevan Sharan Richariya Dead Through Lrs Siddhant Richariya and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Nisha Richhariya and Others - Respondents
Misc. Civil Case No. 167 of 2026
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Shri Ashok Lalwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Yashraj Patel.

Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC applies only to the breach of temporary injunctions or undertakings during a suit's pendency. It cannot be invoked for breaching an undertaking given in a final order passed by a Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 2-A and Section 151 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Breach of undertaking in final order of Writ Court - Maintainability of proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A - Provision under Order 39 Rule 2-A is applicable to the disobedience of injunctions granted under Rules 1 or 2 or breach of terms on which such injunction was granted (Para 7) - This does not include final decrees or final orders passed in a petition (Para 8) - Breach of an undertaking given in a final order passed by a Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution constitutes contempt of court and not a breach of temporary injunction as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 2-A (Paras 8, 12).

(B) Maintainability of Order 39 Rule 2-A - Application is maintainable only during the pendency of the suit in case of violation of an interim order or undertaking; once a suit is decreed, any further action must be taken in execution proceedings (Para 9).

Facts of the case:
An application was filed to initiate proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against respondents for failing to honor an undertaking given before a Writ Court. The respondents had undertaken to amend an execution application within ten days. Relying on this undertaking, the Writ Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, had set aside a possession order passed by an Executing Court. The applicants alleged that the failure to amend the application constituted a breach of injunction.

Findings of Court:
The order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 was a final order disposing of the petition and not a temporary injunction issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The order of the Executing Court being challenged was interlocutory, but the subsequent order of the Writ Court was final. Therefore, the remedy for the breach of such an undertaking is contempt of court, not proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A.

Issues: Whether a breach of an undertaking given in a final order passed by a Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is amenable to proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC is specifically designed to address the disobedience of interim injunctions or undertakings provided during the pendency of a suit. It cannot be invoked for the breach of an undertaking contained in a final order passed by a Writ Court under its supervisory jurisdiction, as such a violation amounts to contempt of the court's final order rather than a breach of a temporary injunction.

Result: Application is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • civil procedure code, 1908
      • order 39 rule 2-a (Para 7, 8)
      • order 21 (Para 8)
      • section 151 (Para 4)
    • contempt of court (Para 12)
  • constitutional law
    • article 227 supervisory jurisdiction (Para 6, 10)

Table of Contents

1. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging breach of undertaking given in writ petition under Article 227. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Applicant contended breach of undertaking is punishable under Order 39 Rule 2-A; court held remedy not available for final order in writ petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC dismissed as not maintainable. (Para 15 )

4. What is the scope of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC?

It applies only to disobedience of an injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, or breach of terms on which such injunction was granted, not to final orders or decrees. (Para 7 , 8 )

5. Can an undertaking given in a final order under Article 227 be enforced under Order 39 Rule 2-A?

No, because the order under Article 227 is a final order, not an interim injunction under Order 39; remedy is contempt or execution, not Order 39 Rule 2-A. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 )

6. Is an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A maintainable after a suit has been decreed?

No, such application is maintainable only during pendency of the suit for interim orders or undertakings, not after decree. (Para 9 )

ORDER :

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 151 read with Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for the following relief:-

It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC as pleaded above against the non-applicants for not obeying their undertaking vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in MP No. 5852/2024.

2. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that earlier a suit was filed for declaring registered joint ownership deed dated 27.08.2004 as null and void. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure A/1). Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a regular first appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.08.2015, but, on review been filed, it was termed as disposed of. In the said judgment, there was certain clarifications, which have been observed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed a suit vide RCSA No. 3600123/2016 for partition, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure A/3). The Civil Court has declared the subject matter of the suit as a joint undivided property of the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants. It has further been declared that some properties are of 1/3rd ownership of share holders. Thereafter, the respondent had filed an execution proceeding before the Executing Court, which was registered as ExA-12/2024. In the said execution proceeding, an application under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC has been filed. In the said application, in Row Nos. G and I-i, the respondents had mentioned the details of the judgment and decree of the earlier suit and accordingly, the Executing Court had issued possession warrants. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.09.2024, the applicants had preferred MP No. 5852/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2025 on the undertaking tendered by respondents. According to the undertaking, counsel for the respondents had accepted the mistake in the execution application while writing details in respect of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023 and other details for which assurance was given that same shall be amended before the Executing Court within 10 days. Relying on the said undertaking, the order impugned by which the possession has been directed in the execution proceeding has been set aside and the Executing Court was directed to execute the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023 passed in RCSA No. 3600123/2016 in its letter and spirit.

3. It is the case of the applicants that despite of the undertaking tendered before the Court in miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the amendment application before the Executing Court for correcting the details of the application in regard to judgment and decree passed by the Court has not been done. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree, which was directed to be executed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been later on stayed in another first appeal, but despite of the undertaking, the respondents have not corrected the application before the Executing Court and as such breached the undertaking, which will amount to breach of injunction as provided under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC. Accordingly, the present application has been filed to initiate the proceeding against the respondents under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC.

4. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that when an order passed in execution proceedings or in a suit is challenged, the Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while issuing additional directions, exercise the jurisdiction of Section 151 of CPC. Thus, the order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the miscellaneous petition is on the basis of the undertak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top