IMPORTANT POINT
Proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC are in nature of criminal proceedings and criminal law will apply.

Vasanti A. Naik, J.— Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial court on 15.10.2010, allowing an application filed by the respondent No.2 plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing that the petitioners be sent to civil prison for a period of one month for breach of injunction order dated 21.1.2002. The petitioners also challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Amravati on 2.3.2012, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 15.10.2010.

3. One Atmaram Bahadur Singh Panjabi was the original plaintiff. The respondent No.2 is the legal heir of Atmaram. In the year 2001, Atmaram filed a civil suit against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed. An application was filed by Atmaram under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property or creating any third party interest therein during the pendency of the suit. The trial court granted an injunction in favour of Atmaram on 21.1.2002. Atmaram expired during the pendency of the proceedings in the year, 2003 and the respondent No.2, his legal heir, was brought on record. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners sold the suit property to a third party by a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2007. On securing knowledge of the same, the respondent No.2 filed Misc. Judicial proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating action against the petitioners for breach of injunction. The petitioners filed the reply to the application and submitted that they were not aware of the order of injunction. It was stated in the reply that neither Atmaram nor the counsel for the petitioners had informed them about the said order. The parties tendered the evidence and on an appreciation of the same, the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 and sent the petitioners to civil prison for a period of one month for the breach of injunction order dated 21.1.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge 2, Amravati, however, by the impugned judgment dated 2.3.2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

4. Shri V.M. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that both the courts erroneously held that the petitioners were aware of the order of injunction dated 21.1.2002, though there was no evidence whatsoever to prove the said fact. According to the learned counsel, it was not the case of the respondent No.2 in the Misc. Judicial Proceedings that the petitioners had knowledge of the order of injunction dated 21.1.2002. According to the learned counsel, though the petitioners had categorically stated on oath that they were not aware of the order dated 21.1.2002, the respondent No.2 had failed to cross-examine the petitioners on the said statement and the statement of fact made by the petitioners went unchallenged. It is submitted that the courts committed an error in holding that the petitioners had knowledge of the order only because they had filed the written statement on 30.1.2002 i.e. after passing of the order of injunction on 21.1.2002. The learned counsel submitted that the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure ‘are in the nature of criminal proceedings and hence the principles of criminal law would apply and it would be necessary for the person filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the defendants had disobeyed the injunction order even though they had full knowledge of the same. The learned counsel relied on the judgments Gyan Chand Jain & Ors v. XIIIth