IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3345 of 2025 (O & M)

Date of decision :-21.01.2026 MGF Development Ltd.

…..Petitioner Versus Pankaj Bansal Director of M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate and Mr. Rubina Virmani, Advocate for the respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 05.4.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram whereby the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the dismissal of its application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151CPC by the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2023, has been allowed. The operative part of the judgment dated 5.4.2024, reads as follows :-

“ xxx xxx xxx (ii) that they (defendants No.1 to 7) are restrained from raising any sort of construction upon the suit property as detailed and described in Schedule ‘A’ of Para No.13 of the plaint…”

It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in flagrant violation of the above injunction, the respondent/defendants no.1 to 7 are carrying out construction over the suit land.

After arguing for some time, when this Court was not inclined to agree with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to para 61 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC. Vs. Future Retail Limited and others (2022)1 Supreme court Cases 209, wherein it is held as follows: -

“61. It is one thing to say that the power exercised by a court under Order 39 Rule 2-A is punitive in nature and akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is quite another thing to say that Order 39 Rule 2-A requires not "mere disobedience" but “willful disobedience”. We are prima facie of the view that the letter judgment in adding the word “willful” into Order 39 Rule 2-A is not quite correct and may require to be reviewed by a larger Bench. Suffice it to say that there is a vast difference between enforcement of orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and orders made in contempt of court. Orders which are in contempt of court are made primarily to punish the offender by imposing a fine or a jail sentence or both. On the other hand, Order 39 Rule 2-A is primarily intended to enforce orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, and for that purpose, civil courts are given vast powers which include the power to attach property, apart from passing orders of imprisonment, which are punitive in nature. Orders passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, using the power contained in Order 39 Rule 2-A are, therefore, properly referable only to the Arbitration Act. Neither of the aforesaid judgments are an authority for any proposition of law to the contrary.”

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the above judgment, it is open to the petitioner to either approach this Court by way of present petition or to take recourse to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. It is submitted that in the present case the dignity of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Gurugram has been called into question by the contumacious conduct of the respondents. As such, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present Contempt Petition.

Heard.

This Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. It is categorically held in para 61 “…that the orders which are in contempt are primarily to punish the offender by imposing a fine or a jail sentence or both. On the other hand, Order 39 Rule 2-A is primarily intended to enforce o