1997 (2) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a person who disobeys an interim injunction made by the Civil Court can be punished under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure when it is ultimately found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Punishment for Disobeying Interim Injunction by a Civil Court Lacking Jurisdiction

A question of general importance arises in these appeals: whether a person who disobeys an interim injunction made by the Civil Court can be punished under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure where it is ultimately found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Bombay High Court opined that such a person cannot be punished, reasoning that if the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, all interim orders made therein must also be deemed without jurisdiction, hence a person flouting such orders cannot be punished.

The appellant, landlord of the suit premises, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction against the first defendant, tenant of the ground floor, from carrying on any construction after the building was destroyed by fire. An ad-interim injunction was granted, and the first defendant's application to vacate it was dismissed. The plaintiff moved for punishing the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2-A for flouting the interim injunction. The Civil Court affirmed its jurisdiction and the temporary injunction, finding massive unauthorized construction in breach of the order. The second defendant was committed to one month's imprisonment.

The High Court, however, held that since the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the defendants could not be punished for disobeying the interim orders. This decision was challenged by the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the High Court, held that interim orders made by a court must be obeyed until set aside by a competent court. The Court emphasized that allowing parties to flout court orders on the assumption of lack of jurisdiction would erode the rule of law and the authority of the courts. The Court referred to Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code (Maharashtra Amendment), which states that courts can grant interim relief pending determination of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court cited various precedents, including Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose and State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, to reinforce that interim orders remain effective until declared void by a competent court. The Court concluded that defendants cannot escape punishment for violations committed before the decision on jurisdiction. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the order of the Civil Court holding the second defendant guilty of contempt was affirmed. The matter was remitted to the High Court to determine the liability of other respondents for violating the injunction order.