SITARAM Vs. GANESH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is direct ed against the appellate order aris ing out of proceedings under O. 39, R. 2-A. Civil P. C. Plaintiff had filed a suit for a permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit had prayed for a temporary injunction. The trial Court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising any further constructions. It was found that the defendant appli cant Sitaram in spite of the order of in junction having been served on him had put up a tinted on the constructions. This was treated as breach of the in junction order and the Court ordered attachment of the property and his de tention in Civil prison. Defendant went up in appeal and the appeal was dismiss ed, but a modification was made in the trial Court's order by substituting 15 days' imprisonment instead of unlimited civil imprisonment directed by the trial Court. Against that order the defen dant has filed the present revision.

(2.) THE defendant had taken the plea that the tasked had been placed not by him but by his brother The trial Court did not believe this state ment but held that even if it was true there was breach of the order of in junction. The lower appellate Court believed the statement of Hari Om the plaintiff's son. which was to the effect that the tinshed had been put up by Sita ram defendant. But without expressly holding that Sitaram had put up the tinshed the Court below impliedly accept ed the position and held that the breach of the injunction order by Sitaram had been established. The Court did not ex pressly rule out the defence version, but overruled it by saying that Sitaram was in default as he had taken no steps to get the tinshed removed.

(3.) THE purpose of Order 39, Rule 2-A. Civil P. C. is to enforce the order of injunction. It is a provision which permits the Court to execute the injunction order. Its provisions are similar to the provisions of Order 21. Rule 32, Civil P. C. which provide for the execution of a decree for injunction The mode of execution given in Order 21, Rule 32 is the same as provided in Rule 2-A of Order 39. In either case. for the execution of the order or de cree of injunction, attachment of pro perty is to be made and the person who is to be compelled to obey the injunction can be detained in civil prison. The purpose is not to punish the man but to see that the decree or order is obeyed and the wrong done by disobedience of the order is remedied and the status quo ante is brought into effect. This view finds support from the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Sonabati Kumari. AIR 1961 SC 221: while dealing with O. 39, Rule 2 (iii). Civil P. C. (without the U. P Amendment) the Court held that the proceedings are in substance designed to effect enforcement of or to execute the order and a parallel was drawn be tween the provisions of O. 21. R. 32 and of O. 39, R. 2 (iii). C. P. C. which is simi lar to Order 39. R. 2-A. This curative function and purpose of Rule 2-A of Order 39. Civil P. C. is also evident from the provision in Rule 2-A for the lifting of imprisonment, which normally would be when the order has been complied with and the coercion of imprisonment no longer remains necessary. Hence, even if Sitaram had earlier been sent to the civil imprisonment, he would have been released on the tinshed being re moved and it would therefore now, serve no purpose to send him to prison. For the same reason the attachmant of property is also no longer needed. The order of the Court below has lost its utility and need no longer be kept alive.