ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
Mamata Tripathy —Petitioner
versus
Arcon Retreat Owners Welfare Association and Ors. —Opp. Parties
C.M.P.No.303 of 2017
Decided on 17.5.2017

IMPORTANT POINT
The scope of the application under Order 39, Rule 2A C.P.C. is extremely limited. The court has to see whether there is disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 C.P.C. or breach of any terms on which the injunction was granted or the order was made. The court can interpret the order for the limited purpose of finding out whether the same is flouted. The court cannot impose additional conditions.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39 Rule 2A—Petitioner, owning a flat in society was member of Flat Owners Welfare Association, a registered society, filed suit seeking defendants not to implement the impugned circular/resolution restraing private van to pick up and drop children from inside the society—Lower appellate court allowed interim injunction with certain directions to be complied—Contempt application alleging violation of court order—Court dismissed application—Revision—Scope of application under Order 39 Rule 2A was limited—Court while dealing with application travelled beyond its jurisdiction in rendering finding with regard to permit, insurance policy, sitting capacity fitness certificate of Pvt. Vehicle—Court was to interpret order for limited purpose of finding out whether same was flouted and could not impose additional conditions.

       Held: Learned appellate court came to hold that the opposite party no.1 was restrained temporarily from preventing the entry of any one of the private carrier vehicles out of the three vehicles into the premises of Arcon Retreat, Patia, Bhubaneswar through its main gate after getting written information from the appellant/petitioner through proper document about the supply of the detailed particulars and information of that one vehicle among the above three with the identity of the owner and the driver of the said particular vehicle to the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar as well as local police by the petitioner. It was a condition precedent to be fulfilled by the petitioner. The full particulars and information of the vehicle are not confined to only registration numbers of the three vehicles, the name of their owner and copies of driving licenses of the drivers. In order to ply a vehicle on a public way even in the premises of Arcon Retreat, Patia, Bhubaneswar, the following documents are sine qua non (i)Valid permit (ii)Registration certificate (iii)Fitness certificate (iv)Valid insurance certificate. The petitioner had only supplied the registration numbers of all the three vehicles, the name of the owner of such vehicles and photostat copy of the driving license of three drivers instead of particulars of one vehicle through which the petitioner will send her minor daughter to the school and coaching center. The court has not permitted the petitioner to use all the three vehicles for the purpose. The opposite parties were in dark as to which vehicle out of three will be engaged by the petitioner. Mere submission of particulars of three vehicles and driving licenses of three drivers does not amount to compliance of the order passed by the learned appellate court.

       Learned court below while dealing with the application under Order 39, Rule 2A C.P.C. has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in rendering finding with regard to permit, insurance policy, sitting capacity, fitness certificate. It gave undue importance to the documents supplied by the R.T.O. The scope of the application under Order 39, Rule 2A C.P.C. is extremely limited. The court has to see whether there is disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 C.P.C. or breach of any terms on which the injunction was granted or the order was made. The court can interpret the order for the limited purpose of finding out whether the same is flouted. The court cannot impose additional conditions. That is not the domain of the court.

       In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs, the petition is disposed of with an observation that in the event the petitioner furnishes the name of the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle in writing to the Commissionerate of Police, IIC, Chadrasekharpur P.S. as well as the Secretary of the opposite party no.1-society, the Secretary shall allow the entry of one of the vehicles through main gate to the place, where Lord Ganesh statue stands. This Court hopes and trusts that parties shall amicably resolve their dispute to give quietus to the issue, instead of fighting litigation in the court. (Paras 7, 14 and 15)

       Result: Petition disposed of accordingly.