'A' institutes a suit against 'B' for permanent injunction restraining 'B' from demolishing the boundary wall… While B is travelling abroad her husband C demolishes the said wall in violation of order of interim injunction. Whether 'C' is liable.

Question: A institutes a suit against B for permanent injunction restraining B from demolishing the boundary wall separating the open areas in front of adjoining houses of A and B. Vide interim order in the said suit B is so restrained.

While B is travelling abroad her husband C demolishes the said wall in violation of order of interim injunction. A files an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC against C. Whether C is liable under Order 39, Rule 2A of the CPC.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [‘A’ institutes a suit against ‘B’ for permanent injunction restraining ‘B’ from demolishing the boundary wall… While B is travelling abroad her husband C demolishes the said wall in violation of order of interim injunction. Whether ‘C’ is liable.]

Answer

Rule 2A Consequence of disobedience breach of injunction or breach of the injunction.

(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, 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.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance if any to the party entitled thereto.

It is to note that the word ‘person guilty of disobedience‘ as appearing in sub-rule (1) of rule 2A of Order 39 is wide enough to engulf such a person who is an agent a servant workman. Further, if the intention of law would not have to include any person other than a party to proceedings in which injunction order was passed then the law orders of the injunction would be rendered nugatory by their being contravened by the agents and servants of the parties and it could be conveniently defined by setting up a third party.

In Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra v. Jaya Krishna Mohapatra AIR 1994 Ori 173 it was observed:

“An injunction is an equitable relief and it is trite law that equity acts in personam. Therefore an injunction is a personal matter. The ordinary rule, therefore, is that the person disobeying the order of injunction is to proceed for contempt as the person named in the writ. Persons who are not parties where the order of injunction is passed are normally not to be proceeded against for disobeying the injunction.

However, the exception to this general rule is that where it is alleged and proved that the person who violated the order of injunction was an agent or servant, or workman of the person against whom the order of injunction was passed, the proceeding can be validly initiated against such person. In such a case the person violating the order can be proceeded against and also who has acted in abetting the violation of an order of injunction.

Where a person who is not a party to the suit is proceeded against in order to punish him it is essential that he should be made a party to the proceedings for violation and it should be brought home by sufficient and unimpeachable evidence that he had been guilty of abetting the violation of the injunction.”

In Ram Prasad Singh v. Subodh Prasad Singh, [AIR 1983 Pat 278] it was held that a person is liable to be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC even if he was not personally a party to the suit provided he is shown to have been agent or servant of the defendant and to have violated the order of injunction in a suite of knowledge that there was such an order.

So in the present case were in a suit instituted by ‘A’ against ‘B’ for a permanent injunction. An interim injunction order is passed restraining ‘B’ from demolishing the boundary wall separating the open areas in front of an adjoining house of ‘A’. Thereafter while ‘B’ was travelling abroad, her husband ‘C’ demolished the said wall in violation of order of interim injunction.

In an application of ‘A’ under Order 39 rule 2A, CPC against ‘C’. ‘C’ can be liable even if ‘C’ was not a party to suit however it is to be proved that ‘C’ being an agent of ‘B’ was having knowledge of interim order of injunction and willfully disobeyed it.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of
8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X