- (1.) THE short question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the person against whom an interim injunction had been granted can be punished under Order 39 R. 2-A of the Civil P. C. , 1908, for short Code, for violation of that injunction after the said injunction has been vacated through final orders passed in the proceedings in which the order of injunction was passed? Putting it differently. the question is whether subsistence of the order of injunction is a necessary condition for passing an order of punishment under Order 39, Rule 2-A? THE question has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.
(2.) APPELLANT Sheo Kumar Saxena filed a suit against the respondents for injunction restraining them from terminating his services. An application for interim injunction was also made. The trial court, by order dated 2-1-1978, granted an interim injunction in favour of the appellant. After hearing both the parties the injunction was vacated by the trial Court on 5-4-1978. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. In this appeal also an application was made for the grant of an interim injunction which was allowed and an interim injunction restraining the respondents from terminating the appellant's services during the pendency of the appeal was passed on 25-4-1978. On 23-4-1978 the appellant moved an application before the lower appellate Court under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code for taking action against the respondents for violation of the interim injunction on the allegation that after the service of the injunction order the respondents on 25-4-78 broke open the locks and took charge of the post held by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed on 31-8-1978 but the application under O. 39, Rule 2-A remained pending and was ultimately disposed of by order dated 16- 12-1978. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that since there was no subsisting injunction against the respondents, no action could be taken against them under Order 39, R. 2-A. Aggrieved by this order the appellant has approached this Court. Shri Hari Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned District Judge has passed a very cryptic order and he has not referred to any provision of law which barred action under Order 39, R. 2-A after the injunction had been vacated. According to him the Code does not contain any such bar and, therefore, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained. The appeal has been opposed by Sri Raj Kumar who put in appearance on behalf of respondents 1, 4 and 5. He argued that the purpose of Order 39, Rule 2-A was to compel obedience of the order of injunction and since after the injunction has been vacated there can be no question of compelling its obedience and, therefore, the punitive action prescribed under the Rule also cannot be taken after the injunction order ceases to exist.
(3.) RULES 1 and 2 of Order 39 empower the court to grant temporary injunction to prevent threatened actions referred to in the RULES. Rule 2-A prescribes the consequences of disobedience or breach of the interim injunction by the party against whom the injunction was issued. The Rule inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976 reads as follows : - "rule 2a. Consequence of disobedience or breach of 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. " Clause (1) provides two consequences. First, the property of the guilty person may be attached and second he may be detained in civil prison. The period of detention can in no event exceed three months. Clause (2) provides the maximum period for which the attachment of property may continue. The maximum period is one year at the end of which the property may be sold and out of the sale proceeds the court may award such compensation to the injured party as it deems fit and the balance, if any, is to be paid to the party entitled thereto. There is, however, one restriction upon the exercise of the power of sale; the sale can be ordered only if the disobedience or the breach is continuing. If the disobedience or the breach ceases to exist, the property cannot be sold. Thus it, after the attachment of property, the guilty person complies with the order of temporary injunction, the attached property cannot be sold. On the same analogy, if the occasion to comply with the injunction vanishes, the attached property cannot be sold. Once the temporary injunction has been vacated, there is no occasion to comply with the same. Therefore, after the temporary injunction has been vacated. , the attached property cannot be sold, there is no occasion to attach property after injunction has been vacated. The obvious purpose of keeping the property under attachment for one year is to give opportunity to the violator to comply with the interim order and thereby remedy the wrong committed by him. In my opinion, the first consequence of disobedience prescribed under Clause (1) cannot be given effect to after the temporary injunction has been vacated.;