In CS(OS) 1086/2013-DEL HC- There must be wilful breach of any term on which injunction was granted in order to invoke Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, clarifies Delhi HC
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna [21-12-2022]

Read Order: BRISTOL DEALCOM PVT. LTD Vs. SMT. MURTI DEVI (DECEASED) AND ORS

New Delhi, December 22, 2022: The object of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of CPC is primarily to enforce orders of interim injunction, the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna opined,“The requisite requirements for invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC are that there must be a breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted and that such breach/ disobedience is wilful.”

The background of this case was such that the defendant was married to one Bhagat Singh and from their wedlock, two children namely, Vijay Pal, son and Neelam were born. On the demise of Bhagat Singh in the year 1980, his wife Murti Devi remarried Gajraj who was the younger brother of the deceased and from their wedlock one daughter(first Defendant) was born. Gajraj also died in the year 1993.

In 2010, Murti Devi entered into an Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid land for a total consideration of Rs 5,02,00,000. The daughter of defendant was a witness to the Agreement to Sell. MoU cum Receipt was executed on the same date, and the plaintiff paid Rs 5 lakh.

Thereafter, the plaintiff from time to time continued to make payments and in all, a sum of Rs 2.75 crore was paid as part of the sale consideration. The defendant had undertaken to obtain the requisite “No Objection Certificate” from the competent authority at her cost and expense and thereafter to execute the Sale Deed, but on one pretext or the other, she failed to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, he filed the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit property. A permanent injunction was also sought for restraining defendants.

The defendant, Murti Devi (since deceased) appeared on receiving the summons of the suit and an ad interim Order was passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

During the pendency of the suit, the Will was challenged by the first defendant by way of a separate suit, but the same was rejected with the directions that any challenge to the Will might be agitated in the present suit itself.

An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC had been filed by Plaintiff seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the second and third Defendants and for the attachment of their Suit Property to safeguard the interest and rights of the Plaintiff against the defendants for violation of an earlier “Status Quo” Order.

The Bench referred to the judgment in U.C. Surendranath v. Mambally's Bakery, wherein it was  laid down with respect to Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, that the disobedience must be “wilful disobedience” because the liability under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is criminal in nature.

According to the Bench, Vijay Pal was not a party to the present suit nor was he impleaded as a party to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. 

Noting that Vijay Pal has created an interest by way of an Agreement to Sell of land of which he was allegedly not the owner, the remedy of the plaintiff lied against him by way of a separate suit, the Bench held that merely because Vijay Pal happened to be the father of the second and third defendants, it couldnot ipso facto lead to the inference that any act of the father would be attributable to the two sons.

Considering the fact that it was only Mr. Vijay Pal who had entered into the Agreement to Sell  and there was no averment or specific details spelled out from where it could be inferred that the defendants were in connivance with their father Vijay Pal, the Bench held that the plaintiff had not been able to show any disobedience of the status quo Order made in the present case.Thus, the contempt application was dismissed.