Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a partition suit filed by respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) seeking 1/5th share in suit property claimed to be joint family property purchased in 1966. The Trial Court granted an ad interim injunction on 22/3/2012 restraining defendant no.1 (petitioner) from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit properties. The petitioner was served with the injunction order on 30/3/2012. Despite this, on 11/4/2012, the petitioner executed two registered sale deeds transferring portions of the suit property to third parties for consideration. Respondent no.1 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC alleging willful disobedience. The petitioner filed his say on the application. The Trial Court, after considering the matter, held that the petitioner had knowledge of the injunction and his act of selling the property was willful disobedience. By order dated 31/8/2017, the Trial Court directed the petitioner's detention in civil prison for three months. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the facts and found that the petitioner was served with the injunction order on 30/3/2012, and the plaintiff had also communicated the order by registered post. The petitioner's claim that he was not aware of the order was rejected as he had filed a say on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, which indicated knowledge. The High Court held that the petitioner's act of executing sale deeds after being served with the injunction was a clear and willful violation of the court's order. The court noted that the Trial Court had given the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and had considered his say before passing the detention order. The High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention of the petitioner for three months. The court emphasized that disobedience of a court order strikes at the very root of the rule of law and must be dealt with sternly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction Violation - Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC - Willful Disobedience - The petitioner, despite being served with an ad interim injunction order on 30/3/2012 restraining him from alienating suit property, executed two sale deeds on 11/4/2012. The Trial Court found this to be willful disobedience and ordered detention for three months. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the injunction and his act was deliberate and contumacious. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Service of Injunction - Knowledge of Order - The summons intimating the injunction order was served on the petitioner on 30/3/2012, and the plaintiff also communicated the order by registered post. The petitioner's claim of ignorance was rejected as he had filed a say on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, indicating knowledge. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure - Proportionality of Punishment - Detention for Three Months - The Trial Court's order of detention for three months was not interfered with by the High Court, as the violation was clear and willful. The High Court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to be heard and the order was passed after considering his say. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's act of executing sale deeds after being served with an ad interim injunction order constitutes willful disobedience warranting detention under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 31/8/2017 directing the petitioner's detention in civil prison for three months for willful disobedience of the ad interim injunction order.
Law Points
- Willful disobedience of injunction
- Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC
- Civil detention
- Partition suit
- Ad interim injunction
- Violation of court order
- Service of injunction order
- Knowledge of order
- Contempt of court
