Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a partition suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking 2/9th share in suit schedule properties. The Trial Court passed an interim order on 09.01.2002 restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit properties until they filed objections to I.A.No.1. The appellant (defendant No.2) allegedly violated this order by executing a sale deed on 10.10.2002 in favour of one B.K.Srinath. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC seeking action against the appellant for willful disobedience. The Trial Court allowed the application and ordered detention of the appellant for one month. The appellant challenged this order in the present appeal. The High Court examined the factual matrix and found that the appellant had knowledge of the interim order, as he was represented by counsel and the order was passed in his presence. The execution of the sale deed despite such knowledge constituted willful disobedience. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, dismissing the appeal and confirming the detention order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 2A - Willful Disobedience of Injunction - Detention in Civil Prison - The appellant, defendant No.2, was ordered to be detained for one month for violating an interim injunction order dated 09.01.2002 by executing a sale deed on 10.10.2002 in favour of a third party. The Trial Court found that the appellant had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the appellant's conduct amounted to contempt of court and the detention was justified. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 2A - Sufficiency of Notice - The appellant contended that the interim order was not served on him. However, the Trial Court and High Court found that the appellant had knowledge of the order through his counsel and by being present in court when the order was passed. The High Court held that the appellant's subsequent conduct in executing the sale deed despite knowledge constituted willful disobedience. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of detention of the appellant for one month under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for violation of an interim injunction order was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court's order dated 25.07.2013 directing detention of the appellant for one month for willful disobedience of the interim injunction order.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rule 2A CPC
- willful disobedience
- interim injunction
- civil prison
- partition suit
- violation of court order
