High Court of Karnataka Upholds Detention Order for Violation of Interim Injunction in Partition Suit. Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Detention for One Month Confirmed as Appellant Executed Sale Deed Despite Restraint Order.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri Ananda Reddy, was the second defendant in a partition suit (O.S.No.7674/2001) filed by the respondents, Smt. Radhamma and Smt. Nalini, seeking a 2/9th share in suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, on 09.01.2002, passed an interim order restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties until they filed objections to I.A.No.1. The appellant violated this order by executing a sale deed on 10.10.2002 in favor of one B.K.Srinath. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC seeking action for contempt. The Trial Court allowed the application and ordered the appellant's detention for one month. The appellant challenged this order in the present miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The High Court heard both sides and reserved judgment on 23.11.2024, pronouncing it on 29.11.2024. The court found that the Trial Court's order was based on evidence of violation and was not illegal or perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of detention was upheld.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Contempt of Court - Violation of Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant, defendant No.2, violated an interim order dated 09.01.2002 restraining alienation of suit schedule properties by executing a sale deed on 10.10.2002. The Trial Court allowed I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and ordered detention for one month. The High Court upheld the order, finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's decision. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in ordering detention of the appellant for one month under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for violating an interim injunction order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 25.07.2013 directing detention of the appellant for one month under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

Law Points

  • Order 39 Rule 2A CPC
  • violation of interim injunction
  • detention for contempt
  • partition suit
  • alienation of property
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (11) 11

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8803/2013 (CPC)

2024-11-29

H.P. Sandesh

Sri Krishna Murthy (Senior Counsel for Sri Chandrakanth Patil K.) for appellant; Sri T. Seshagiri Rao for caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2

Sri Ananda Reddy

Smt. Radhamma and Smt. Nalini

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of detention under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for violation of interim injunction in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the Trial Court's order dated 25.07.2013 directing his detention for one month.

Filing Reason

Appellant violated interim order dated 09.01.2002 by executing a sale deed on 10.10.2002.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court allowed I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC on 25.07.2013, ordering detention of appellant for one month.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court's order under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was justified.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the order was illegal and perverse. Respondents supported the Trial Court's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Trial Court's order under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was based on evidence of violation of the interim injunction and was not illegal or perverse; hence, no interference was warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the order dated 25.07.2013 passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC in O.S.No.7674/2001 ordering detention of defendant No.2/appellant herein for a period of one month for violation of the interim order.

Procedural History

Suit filed in 2001; interim injunction granted on 09.01.2002; violation by sale deed on 10.10.2002; I.A.No.5 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A; Trial Court allowed I.A. on 25.07.2013 ordering detention; present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; heard on 23.11.2024; judgment on 29.11.2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rule 2A, Order 43 Rule 1(r)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Detention Order for Violation of Interim Injunction in Partition Suit. Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Detention for One Month Confirmed as Appellant Executed Sale Deed Despite Restraint Order.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Employer's Appeal Against ESI Interest Demand, Upholding Statutory Interest Under ESI Act and Regulations. Interest on Delayed Contributions from 1975 to 1988 Held Payable at 6% and 12% Rates as Per Regulation 31-A and Section...