In an appeal filed before the Bombay High Court to take exception to the judgment and order dated 03-04-2025 awarding punishment of civil imprisonment for one month under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Single Judge bench of Justice Shailesh P. Brahme quashed and set aside the impugned judgment while holding that the appellants had not wilfully disobeyed the judgment.
The respondents filed a cross-objection challenging the said judgment by seeking enhancement of the punishment, which the Court took up along with the present appeal.
Appellants filed a regular suit for injunction, contending that there was a partition in the family and that the respondents had obstructed their peaceful possession. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 11-02-2020. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a regular civil appeal.
After hearing the parties, the respondent’s application for an injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, of the CPC was allowed, and the appellants were restrained from creating any third-party interest in the suit land. The respondent contended that appellant 2 executed two sale deeds on 18-07-2022, and appellant 1 executed two sale deeds on 19-07-2022, constituting a breach of the injunction.
The appellants submitted that they had no knowledge of the injunction passed and that there was no intention to flout the said order.
The Court noted that the parties were related inter se and that, by the impugned order, the appellants were found guilty of breaching the injunction and awarded civil imprisonment for one month. It was further noted that the Lower Appellate Court held that the appellants were present for the hearing of the respondent’s application for an injunction order, and the Court stated that their contention of not being aware of the order, as they were out of station, had been rightly discarded.
The Court stated that four sale deeds were executed on 18-07-2022 and 19-07-2022 by the appellants without ascertaining whether any order had been passed in the injunction proceedings. It was also said that the appellants were bold enough to state in the sale deeds that no dispute was pending before the court. Hence, the Court said that the Lower Appellate Court had rightly concluded that there was a breach of the injunction order, having regard to the appellants’ conduct.
Further, the Court stated that presuming that the proceedings in the regular civil appeal continued between the parties, the alienations made by the appellants would have been hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the respondents.
The Court found there to be an absence of any intention on the part of the appellants to cause any prejudice to the respondent or to disregard the majesty of the Court. It was said that there was room to infer that the drastic action of committing a person guilty of disobedience to civil imprisonment was not contemplated.
Considering the circumstances, the Court found the drastic action unwarranted and that the appellants had proved the case was not one of wilful disobedience. It was also stated that no case was made out for enhancement of the penalty.
Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the cross objection was dismissed, while the impugned judgment was set aside.
Appearances:
For Appellants in AO and Respondents in X. Obj – Mr. Milind M. Patil
For Respondents in AO and Petitioner in X. Obj – Mr. P.V. Sonpethkar
