- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred from an order of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the petition filed by the appellant against the respondents for contempt of an interim order passed by the High Court. The petition was dismissed on basically three grounds: (1) That there was a disputed question of fact involved where it would be necessary to give sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses in order to come to a definite conclusion whether the interim order had in fact been violated; (2) That Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code (referred to as "the Code") was a specific provision to meet the contingency of breach of injunction orders and when such remedies were available, the person complaining of the breach of the injunction order should not be allowed to take up proceedings of contempt of court; (3) The injunction order was passed at an interim stage and the rights of the parties were still to be adjudicated finally. All three grounds are wholly erroneous.
(2.) With regard to the first ground; as Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides the right to proceed under the Act is an additional right.
(3.) Further, the High Court has overlooked Section 122 of the Code which provides: "122. Power of certain High Courts to make rules.-High Courts not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner may, from time to time after previous publication, make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the civil courts subject to their superintendence, and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule." Therefore, if there is any conflict between the provisions of the Code with the Rules framed by the High Court, the latter will prevail.;