- (1.) Heard Shri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the applicant. This application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 26.5.2011 passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. granting temporary injunction. A further prayer to prosecute and punish the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the order dated 8.6.2011 and 13.11.2013 passed by District Magistrate, Kaushambi has also been made. In so far as willful disobedience of the orders of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 8.6.2011 and 13.11.2013 are concerned, any disobedience of the same will not constitute a contempt, inasmuch as the said orders have been passed by the District Magistrate on administrative side and not acting as a Court and, thus, are not covered under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The prayer made in respect of the aforesaid two orders of the District Magistrate is misconceived and, accordingly, stands rejected.
(2.) In so far as the violation of the temporary injunction order passed by the Civil judge is concerned, it is well settled that normally the remedy for violation of temporary injunction granted by Civil Court lies under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. and the powers conferred by section 10 read with section 12 of the Act, are not liable to be invoked. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Sukha Deo Prasad, 2009 AIR(SC) 2330 .
(3.) However, Shri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the facts of this case are extraordinary, which warrant cognizance by this Court to punish the opposite parties for willful disobedience. It has been very vehemently submitted that despite injunction order dated 26.5.2011, private opposite party Nos. 1 to 7, who are defendants in the suit, are violating the injunction order and opposite party Nos. 8 to 12 are abating the same by not enforcing the order. It has been orally submitted that the applicant is in possession over the land, which is subject-matter of the suit and despite temporary injunction directing status quo and not to raise any construction or to cut the standing crops, the same is being violated. Although a large number of oral assertions have been made asserting that temporary injunction is being violated, but no such averment has been made on oath in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The only allegation has been made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit, which is quoted hereunder: That since respondent Nos. 4 to 7 of this petition were not abiding the order of the Civil Court dated 26.5.2011, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before the District Magistrate, Kaushambi for compliance of the order of the Civil Court dated 26.5.2011 passed in OS No. 283/2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaushambi.;