IMPORTANT POINT
When Court ordered parties to maintain status quo and directed parties not to alienate suit property in any manner, if such a case is made out and established duty of Court to see that said breach is punished and is not repeated.

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.— The plaintiffs in O.S. No.5163 of 2000 have come up in this appeal impugning the one line order passed by the Court below on I.A. No.16 filed under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Appellants herein who are plaintiffs in the Court below filed a suit in the Court below filed a suit in OS No. 5163 of 2000 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 31.3.1988 entered into between them and defendants with reference to suit schedule properties. During the pendency of said proceedings an order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs pursuant to an application filed by them under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which is not in dispute. It is contended by appellants herein that during the pendency of said interim order to defendants herein have disposed off the suit schedule properties in utter disobedience to the order of the Court below. Hence, plaintiffs filed an application in IA No.16 under Order 39, Rule 2A.

3. It is an admitted fact that on the said application an independent enquiry is also conducted by the Court below. Thereafter, both the parties have addressed their arguments. Strangely, the said application came to be disposed of by the order impugned, which is one line order dated 17.1.2000 reads as under:

17.1.2009 PRR D1 and 2 SS Order on IA No.16

Parties are absent. Orders pronounced in open Court. I.A. No. 16 is, rejected. P/E on merits 17/1.”

4. The Court below after considering the serious allegation made by the plaintiffs against defendants which is with regard to contemptuous act said to have committed by the defendants against the interim order passed by the Court below, after having recorded the evidence on the said application in I.A. No.16 and after hearing the parties, ought to have, given appropriate reasons while disposing of the said application either to allow or dismiss the same and whatever be the order it should have been on merits of the case.

5. However, the order impugned clearly discloses that the Court below has not’ applied its mind. It has considered the said application in a very casual manner though the allegations made are quite serious, which virtually amounts to showing utter disrespect or contempt to the order of the Court which cannot be permitted.

6. It is submitted by the Counsel for appellants that subsequent to filing of the present appeal the aforesaid suit filed by them is dismissed for default, in respect of which they have filed an application under Order 9, Rule 30 of CPC for restoration of the same, which is pending in Misc. No. 322 of 2009. Be that as it may. Though in the instant case the dismissal of the suit is pending consideration in the aforesaid miscellaneous proceedings, it does not come in the way of the Court below taking up this matter an afresh and to pass orders on the application in I.A. No.16 on merits taking into consideration the evidence available on record on the said application and also the submissions made by the parties to suit.

7. In support of that learned Counsel for appellant relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Prithawi Nath Ram v State of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4277: (2004) 7 SCC 261: 2004 AIR SCW 4742 wherein it is observed by the Apex Court as under:

“9. In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take that as a ground for disobedience of any interim order passed by the Court.”

And also in the matter of K. Seshappa v. St Francis Xavier Church Sikkaballapur, 1999 5 Kar. LJ 379 wherein it is observed by this Court as under:

“The purport of Rule 2A of Order 39 is to see that the dignity of Court is not violated. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed and if anybody tries to take law into his own hands and to act in breach of the order