Present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt Court Act for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 03.09.2002 passed in Second Appeal No. 5 of 1995 (Satti Din Vs. Kallo and others).
Facts in brief are that in the year 1987, a Suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent praying therein that the appellants-defendants may be permanently restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land in dispute which is a 'Sahan'(registered as Civil Suit No. 463 of 1987, Satti Din Vs. kallu and others). Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sitapur by judgment and order dated 10.09.1992 dismissed the Suit.
Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed, dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.09.1994 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Sitapur. Thereafter, second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed before this Court (registered as Second Appeal no. 5 of 1995, Satti Din Vs. Kallu etc.).
On 03.09.2002, an interim injunction has been granted on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C., the relevant portion of the same is quoted as under :-
"Till the next date of listing parties shall maintain status quo, as it exists today, with reference to subject matter in dispute.
As per the version of the appellant-defendants, the respondent tried to construct a Nali over the land in dispute and collected material on spot for that purpose. On getting the information, the applicants pursued the matter with the Police authorities, but no heed has been paid as the police is in collusion with the respondent.
It is further pleaded on behalf of the applicants that on 26.07.2010, an application was moved under Section 151 C.P.C. in Civil Case No. 594 of 1995, Kallu etc. Vs. Satti Din, pending in the court of 4th Additional Civil Judge(J.D.), Sitapur in which the land in question as well as some other land involved, but nothing has been paid in the said matter.
Further, on 27/28.07.2010, the respondent constructed the Nali over the land in dispute with the help of musclemen and on resistance given by the applicant no.1, he threatened him with dire consequences and completely changed the situation of the land in dispute affecting the Sahan of the applicants to a great detriment.
In view of the above factual backgrounds, the present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff has violated the order dated 03.09.2002 passed by this Court in Second Appeal no. 5 of 1995, Satti Din Vs. Kallu and others, so he is liable to be punished.
Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
It is late in a day to quarrel that in a second appeal, an interim order/injunction order is granted by Court in view of the provisions as provided under order XXXIX Rule 10 C.P.C. In case, if there is any breach or disobedience of the said order passed by Court, for disobedience of the same, the procedure is provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) C.P.C. which is as under :-
"2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction - (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule I or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime the court directs his release."
Accordingly, in view of the above said facts, the question which rises for consideration in the instant case that in case if an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is available to the appellants for breach of the order dated 03.09.2002 passed in pending second appeal, then in that circumstances, whether the present contempt petition filed by him is maintainable or not. The answer to the above said question lies in the following judgments.
In the case of S.G. Pagaree Vs. Zonal Manager, Food Coropration of India, New Delhi and others reported in 1987, AWC, 506, it is held by this Court that where alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is available, proceeding under the contempt Courts Act should not be taken.
In the case of Pratap Narain Vs. Smt. Nomita Roy and others, reported in 1984, AWC, 567, the similar view was also expressed and it was held that remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is far more adequate and satisfactory remedy as disobedience of an injunction order of the Court below is involved.
In the case of Savitri Devi(Smt.) Vs. Civil Judge(J.D.), Gorakhpur and others, 2003(1) ARC 545, it is held that in view of the above discussion, once reaches the inescapable conclusion that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A are quashi-criminal in nature and are meant to maintain the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the people so that the supremacy of law may prevail and to deter the people for mustering the courage to disobey the interim injunction passed by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the present contempt petition filed by the applicants under Section 12 of the Contempt Court's Act for alleged non-compliance of the interim order/injunction order granted by this Court in pending second appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29/01/2011 krishna/*