Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Vinod Babarao Rode and Sou. Varsha Vinod Rode, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the trial court under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), directing their civil imprisonment for one month for breach of an injunction order dated 21.01.2002. They also challenged the appellate judgment dated 02.03.2012 dismissing their appeal. The original plaintiff, Atmaram Bahadursingh Panjabi, had filed a civil suit in 2001 against the petitioners for declaration, injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed. The trial court granted a temporary injunction on 21.01.2002 restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property. Atmaram died in 2003, and his legal heir, respondent no.2, was brought on record. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners sold the suit property to a third party on 22.10.2007. Upon learning of this, respondent no.2 filed proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for breach of injunction. The petitioners filed a reply claiming they had no knowledge of the injunction order. The trial court, after evidence, allowed the application and sentenced them to one month civil imprisonment. The District Judge dismissed the appeal. The High Court noted that there was no evidence to prove that the petitioners had knowledge of the injunction order. The respondent no.2 did not plead or prove that the petitioners were aware of the order. The court held that for an action under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, knowledge of the order is essential. Since the burden of proof was on the applicant and it was not discharged, the impugned orders were set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Breach of Injunction - Order 39 Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Knowledge of Injunction Order - The court held that for an action under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, it must be proved that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the injunction order. In the absence of any evidence that the petitioners were aware of the order dated 21.01.2002, the order sentencing them to civil imprisonment was unsustainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Burden of Proof - Order 39 Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The burden lies on the applicant to prove that the opposite party had knowledge of the injunction order. Mere passing of the order is insufficient; actual or constructive knowledge must be established. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners can be punished for breach of an injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC when there is no evidence that they had knowledge of the order
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the trial court and the judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed by the District Judge, and made the rule absolute.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rule 2A CPC requires knowledge of injunction order for breach
- burden of proof on applicant to show knowledge
- civil imprisonment is a drastic remedy
