1998 (9) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court can order detention without ordering attachment of property u/r 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the conjunction "and may also" in Rule 2A(1) of Order 39.
3. Distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt.

Summary:

Issue 1: Detention Without Attachment of Property
The defendant defied an ad-interim injunction order by constructing a brick wall, leading the plaintiff to seek punitive action u/r 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court ordered the defendant's detention in civil prison for one month, which was upheld by the appellate court but quashed by the High Court. The High Court held that detention without prior attachment of property is contrary to law, a view contested by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "and may also" in Rule 2A(1)
The High Court interpreted the conjunction "and may also" in Rule 2A(1) to mean that detention in civil prison is an additional remedy to attachment of property, not an alternative. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that such an interpretation could lead to anomalous situations where a disobedient party with no property would be immune from consequences. The Court clarified that both attachment and detention are permissible, either separately or together, based on the facts of each case.

Issue 3: Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Contempt
The High Court distinguished between civil contempt, which benefits one party against another, and criminal contempt, which upholds the "majesty of law and the dignity of the Court." The Supreme Court noted that even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased, although its rigour may be toned down.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that detention requires prior attachment of property. The Court held that both remedies could be applied independently or together. However, considering the defendant's subsequent actions of removing the obstruction and tendering an unconditional apology, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to detain the defendant in prison and dismissed the special leave petition.