O 39 R 2A CPC | Even If Injunction Order Was Subsequently Set Aside, Party Remains Liable For Its Prior Violation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order would not preclude the courts from holding the party guilty of disobedience of the  committed during the pendency of the order.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol delivered the ruling in the context of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, which specifies the mechanism to take action against those who disobey injunction orders or other orders made under Order 39 CPC Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

Rule 2A (1) prescribes punishment for disobeying the injunction orders. It allows the court to punish the disobedient party by attachment of property or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

The Court emphasized that a party remains liable for violating an injunction order while it was in force, even if the order is later set aside.

The Court's decision was based on the precedent established in the case of Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59, where it was held that “even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased.”

The Case

The Court heard the case where the controversy surrounds the undertaking given by the Appellant before the Trial Court stating that they would not alienate the suit property to any third party. Accepting the undertaking and incorporating it in its order (Nov. 2007), the trial court time and again extended the operation of the injunction order restricting the appellant from alienating the suit property.

Despite the undertaking, the appellants sold portions of the property between 2007 and 2011, in clear violation of the court's order.

Against the said violation, the respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC seeking action against the Appellant.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the respondents failed to prove wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt.

Later on, the Trial Court also dismissed the original suit, noting that he description of the property was ambiguous and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

After the trial court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, the respondents appealed to the High Court, which reversed the Trial Court's decision, holding that the appellants had wilfully violated the undertaking and were guilty of contempt of court.

The High Court imposed penalties, including imprisonment and attachment of property.

Aggrieved by the High Court's imposition of penalties, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

While the primary issue before the Supreme Court was the appellants' sentence of imprisonment and compensation, the Court also examined the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 1, Rule 2, and Rule 2A. It further discussed the impact of dismissing a suit seeking an injunction on previously disobeyed injunction orders, particularly in light of the appellant alienating the suit property despite an undertaking before the trial court.

Observation

The judgment authored by Justice Karol upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants had willfully disobeyed the court's order.

Citing Samee Khan's case, the Court observed that the Appellant cannot take a plea that the subsequent dismissal of the suit seeking an injunction would erase the erstwhile disobedience of the injunction order. It emphasized that the disobedience of the injunction order was not erased merely because the original suit was subsequently dismissed.

The principle underscores the importance of complying with court orders during the pendency of litigation. The judgment reinforces the idea that the breach of an interim order is a separate offense that must be addressed independently of the final outcome of the case.

As a result, the Court partly allowed the appeal, deleting the three months imprisonment for wilful disobedience of the Court's order, but enhanced the amount of compensation payable by the appellants herein from a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakh, which shall also carry simple interest @6% from the date of the judgment of the lower Court, i.e., 2nd August 2013.

Case Title: SMT LAVANYA C & ANR VERSUS VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S Hegde, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. Abhinav Hansaraman, Adv.