News Updates

Duty Of Court To Set The Wrong Right In Case Of Wilful Disobedience Of Court Order: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]

Ashok K.M
30 July 2017 12:01 PM GMT
Duty Of Court To Set The Wrong Right In Case Of Wilful Disobedience Of Court Order: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while disposing of a second appeal in a civil suit, has made an observation pertaining to the objective of Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan observed that the primary object of the said provision is not to punish a person, who has disobeyed the order of injunction, but to enforce the order.

In the instant case, while the second appeal was pending before the high court, the parties had raised a structure, even as the court had restrained them from doing so.

Terming their conduct ‘surprising’, Justice Chauhan observed: “There is no remorse whatsoever on their part. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option to allow the application by directing the respondents to first purge the contempt.”

The court further observed: “Wilful disobedience, no doubt, invites wrath of penal action as envisaged in the said provision, hence, where any action is done in violation of a order or stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not to allow perpetuation of the wrong doing. These provisions are intended to maintain majesty of judicial order, to preserve rule of law and to ensure faith of litigants in the administration of justice. It is a curative provision and its purpose is to ensure that the direction of the Court is implemented, disobedience of order is remedied and status quo ante is restored.”

The court, directing the parties to purge the contempt by demolishing the structure raised during the pendency of the appeal, observed: “It is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty of law even though the same may call for extreme step.”

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story