- (1.) SHANKAR Shukla, plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for permanent in junction restraining the applicants from changing the nature of the land in suit and for possession. An application for an inte rim injunction under Order 39, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code was also made. The trial Court granted the injunction and directed that the status quo shall be maintained. During the pendency of the injunction the defendant- applicants disobeyed the injunc tion. An application under Order 39, R. 2-A as amended by this Court was then moved by the opposite party for taking action against the defendant-applicants for the disobedience of the injunction. The trial Court ordered the detention of the appli cants in Civil prison for a period of 20 days. Against the order of the learned Munsif an appeal was filed by the applicants. The learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court, hence this revi sion.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli cant has contended that under Order 39, Rule 2-A it was the duty of the Court to order attachment of the property for breach of an injunction order and the order of de tention in civil prison without the substan tive punishment of attachment of the pro perty was bad in law. Order 39, Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the Court to issue an injunction in certain cases. It is in these words:-- "In any suit for restraining the defen dant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether com pensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the com mencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defen dant from committing the breach of con tract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right." Order 39, Rule 2-A provides for punish ment in case of disobedience of an injunc tion and reads thus: 2- A. In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under Rule 1 or Rule 2 sub-clause (2) or of breach of any terms of any such injunction, the Court in which the suit is proceeding 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 six months unless in the meantime the Court directs his release". The language of Rule 2-A no doubt is misleading, but it cannot be said that in every type of breach of an injunction it is imperative on the Court to attach the pro perty also. Attachment is effected to ensure award of compensation whereas detention in civil prison checks the infringement and punishes the person committing a breach. The nature of punishment will depend on the nature of breach. The violation of an injunction is a civil wrong and it is discre tionary with the Court not to award any punishment when the breach is a minor breach or where the breach has not been the result of deliberate action. In a case where the breach is a continuing one and further disobedience is sought to be stop ped, attachment of the property may be an appropriate remedy. But where the breach jis a single completed breach, punishment by detention in civil prison alone will not be I an inappropriate order. In Thazath Suppi v. Alabi Kunhi Koya, AIR 1917 Mad 448, it was laid down that:- "A Court can, in its discretion, order either arrest or attachment of property and is not bound in the first instance to attach property and then only order imprison ment.While considering the law in England it was remarked that: "In England the usual order in cases of disobedience of an injunction by natural persons is attachment of the person or com mittal; while sequestration is the usual order passed in case of disobedience by Corpora tion.Similarly, in Mowazzam Ali Khan v. Shebash Chandra, AIR 1927 Gal 598, the Calcutta High Court disapproved the inter pretation that the Court is obliged to order an attachment of property first and unless that is done it cannot order punishment. The Gujarat High Court also in Thakorlal Parshottamdas v. Chandulal Chunnilal, AIR 1967 Guj 124 held that it was not imperative that the order of at tachment must in every case precede the order of detention. This revision, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.;