Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil suit (Regular CS No. 21 of 2001) filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 (original plaintiffs) seeking injunction against defendants regarding common space around flats. An appellate court (8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur) passed an injunction order on 28.8.2001 restraining defendants from erecting permanent structures and directing maintenance of status quo. The appellant no. 1 (Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram) purchased the property later and was added as defendant no. 7 on 16.1.2003. The plaintiffs alleged that during summer vacations, appellant no. 1 demolished a chamber and drainage and diverted water course, breaching the injunction. The trial court (5th Jt Civil Judge, JD, Nagpur) allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC on 13.10.2003, directing restoration of the chamber and drainage and issuing notice to show cause why he should not be sent to civil prison. The appellant appealed (MCA No. 28 of 2004) and obtained a stay on 17.1.2004 by making false statements in the supporting affidavit that Writ Petition No. 77 of 2003 was dismissed, whereas it was actually disposed of with modifications. The plaintiffs sought review. The High Court, in this criminal appeal, examined whether the appellant was bound by the injunction. The court held that the appellant, being added as a party, had knowledge of the order and was bound by it. The trial court's order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also deprecated the making of false statements in the affidavit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Breach of Injunction - Order 39 Rule 2A CPC - Subsequent Purchaser - A subsequent purchaser added as defendant after an injunction order is bound by the order if he has knowledge of it. The trial court correctly held that the appellant, having been added as defendant no. 7, was aware of the injunction and his actions constituted breach. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - False Statements in Affidavit - Order 39 Rule 2A CPC - The appellant and his counsel made false statements in the stay application regarding the status of a writ petition, which amounted to an attempt to mislead the court. Such conduct is deprecated and may attract consequences. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser of property, added as a party to the suit after an injunction order was passed, is bound by that order and can be proceeded against under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for breach of injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the trial court's order dated 13.10.2003 and the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rule 2A CPC
- Breach of injunction
- Subsequent purchaser bound by injunction
- Knowledge of order
- False statements in affidavit
- Contempt of court
