B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) A question of some general importance arises in these appeals. The question is 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 A learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has opined, following certain earlier decisions of that Court, that he cannot be. The reason given is:once it is found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, all interim orders made therein must also be deemed to be without jurisdiction and, hence, a person flouting such interim orders cannot be punished for their violation. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff appellant.
(2.) The first defendant, Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited, is the tenant of the ground floor in the suit house. The appellant is the landlord. On August 25, 1985 the said building was destroyed by fire.
(3.) On February 11, 1991 the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay (Suit No. 1407 of 1991) for a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any construction in the suit premises. The appellants case was that inasmuch as the building, which was the subject-matter of tenancy between the parties, has been destroyed by fire, the tenancy of the first defendant has come to an end. (The second respondent herein is the Managing Director of the first respondent and was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.) The appellant applied for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any construction. An ad interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court on February 15, 1991. The first defendant applied for vacating the interim injunction but his application was dismissed by the Civil Court in February/March, 1991. An Appeal preferred by the first defendant was dismissed on July 24, 1991.;