Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a civil suit O.S.No.171/2014 filed by the respondent, an advocate and notary, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners—a newspaper editor, the managing director and director of the publication company, and a printing firm—from publishing defamatory material. The trial court granted a temporary prohibitory injunction on 10.04.2015 restraining the petitioners from making or publishing defamatory statements, which order was confirmed in M.A.No.5/2015. Despite this, the petitioners published a defamatory article in their Karavali Ale newspaper on 18.04.2015. The respondent initiated proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Misc.Case.No.12/2015. The trial court, by order dated 24.09.2021, directed the petitioners to tender an unconditional apology within thirty days or undergo civil imprisonment for fifteen days. The petitioners published the apology on 22.10.2021. The respondent challenged this order in M.A.No.22/2021, contending that the trial court exceeded the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 2A by directing an apology instead of imposing statutory punishment. The appellate court allowed the appeal on 03.11.2022 and directed the petitioners to be detained in civil prison for three months. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the appellate court order. The primary legal question was whether the trial court could impose a penalty other than the penalty provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. The petitioners argued that the trial court rightly exercised discretion and they had complied with the apology, that there was no further defamatory publication, and that the three-month imprisonment was unwarranted. They also offered to tender another apology if directed. The respondent contended that Order XXXIX Rule 2A only permits attachment or civil imprisonment, not apology; that the power under that Rule is different from Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 where apology is statutory; and that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. The High Court, after examining Order XXXIX Rule 2A and the relevant precedents, held that when a statute prescribes a penalty for an act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated can be imposed. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and the Rajasthan High Court decision in Deepak Gupta, which stated that Order XXXIX Rule 2A cannot be liberalised and a person found guilty must be detained in civil prison, not merely directed to tender an apology. The High Court held that the trial court's order of apology was outside the statutory scheme and the appellate court rightly corrected that error by directing civil imprisonment for three months. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Disobedience of Injunction - Penalty Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A - The point raised was whether a trial court can impose a penalty other than the penalty provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC - The High Court held that when a statute prescribes a penalty, no other penalty not contemplated can be imposed; the trial court's direction to tender an unconditional apology was outside the statutory scheme and the appellate court rightly corrected it by directing civil imprisonment for three months - Held that the trial court cannot impose penalty other than prescribed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A (Paras 5-6). B) Contempt of Court - Apology as Punishment - Distinction Between Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 2A; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - The respondent argued that the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is different from Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, where tendering of apology is provided by statute - The High Court accepted that apology is not a penalty under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and that the trial court's order of apology could not be sustained as a substitute for statutory punishment - Held that the trial court's order directing apology was beyond the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 2A (Paras 3, 5-6). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of Judicial Review - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The High Court considered the limited scope of enquiry under Article 227 and found the impugned order did not suffer from any error of law or fact - Since the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction, the appellate court's order directing civil imprisonment was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed - Held that no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227 (Paras 2-3, 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court can impose penalty other than the penalty provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Final Decision
The High Court answered the point for consideration in the negative, holding that the Trial Court cannot impose penalty other than the penalty prescribed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned order directing civil imprisonment for three months was upheld.
Law Points
- When a statute or statutory rules prescribe a penalty for any act or omission
- no other penalty not contemplated can be imposed
- under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC
- consequences of disobedience are attachment of property and/or detention in civil prison for up to three months
- not apology
- power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is different from Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 where apology is provided by statute
- a court cannot liberalise or substitute penalties outside the statutory scheme.
