Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mgf Development Ltd vs Pankaj Bansal Director Of M3M India Pvt. ... on 21 January, 2026
COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103
COCP No.3345 of 2025 (O & M)
Date of decision ::-21.01.2026
MGF Development Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Bansal Director of M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
CORAM:-
Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Gaurav Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate
cate and
Mr. Rubina Virmani, Advocate
for the respondents.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 05.4.2024 (Annexure P P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram whereby tthe civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the dismissal of its application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151CPC by the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2023, has been allowed. The operative part of the ju judgment dated 5.4.2024, reads as follows :-
:
" xxx xxx xxx
(ii) that they (defendants No.1 to 7) are restrained from raising any sort of construction upon the suit 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:57:54 ::: COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 2 property as detailed and described in Schedule 'A' of Para No.13 of the plaint..."
It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in flagrant violation of the above injunction, the respondent/defendants no.1 to 7 are carrying out construction over the suit land.
After arguing for some time, when this Court was not inclined to agree with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to para 61 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC. Vs. Future Retail Li Limited and others (2022)1 Supreme court Cases 209, wherein it is held as follows: -
"61. It is one thing to say that the power exercised by a court under Order 39 Rule 22-A is punitive in nature and akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt ontempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is quite another thing to say that Order 39 Rule 22-A requires not "mere disobedience" but "willful disobedience disobedience". We are prima facie of the view that the letter judgment in adding the word "willful" into Order 39 Rule 22-A is not quite correct and may require to be reviewed by a larger Bench. Suffice it to say that there is a vast difference between enforcement of orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and orders made in contempt of court. Orders which are in contempt of ccourt are made primarily to punish the offender by imposing a fine or a jail sentence or both. On the other hand, Order 39 Rule 2-A A is primarily intended to enforce orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, and for that purpose, civil courts are given vastt powers which include the power to attach property, apart from passing orders of imprisonment, which are punitive in nature. Orders passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, using the power contained in Order 39 Rule 22-A are, therefore, properly referable only to the Arbitration Act. Neither of the aforesaid judgments are an authority for any proposition of law to the contrary."
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:57:55 ::: COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 3 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the above judgment, it is open to the petitioner to ei either approach this Court by way of present petition or to take recourse to the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A 2 A CPC. It is submitted that in the present case the dignity of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Gurugram has been called into question by the contumacious conduct of the respondents. As such, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present Contempt Petition.
Heard.
This Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the petitio petitioner. It is categorically held in para 61 "...that the orders which are in contempt are primarily to punish the offender by imposing a fine or a jail sentence or both. On the other hand, Order 39 Rule 22-A is primarily intended to enforce orders passed under O Order 39 Rules 1 and 2...".
It is my considered view that in the present case, the petitioner is seeking the enforcement of the order dated 5.4.2024; whereby the respondents/defendants no.1 to 7 were injuncted/restrained from raising construction over the ssuit land. Question of punishing the alleged contemners in a proceeding such as the present one, would arise once it is determined that contempt has been committed. Thus, the first and right remedy for the petitioner, as per law, is to file an application under under Order 39 Rule 22-A CPC.
Especially in view of the fact that in the present Contempt petition, the petitioner is raising disputed questions of fact in respect of the 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:57:55 ::: COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 4 alleged constructions raised by the respondents in violation of the order dated 5.4.2024.
5.4.2024. Such a determination of fact, as to whether the respondents have indeed raised construction or not over the suit property, cannot be made by this Court in the present petition; and can only be ascertained in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 22-A CPC. Reliance iance may be placed upon Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Bhodarbhai Vicchiyabhai Pargi v. Panglabhai Khatrabhai Damor, (Gujarat)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2559695 wherein it has been held as follows:
"A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sec Section 2(b) and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Breach of injunction order - Applicant sought initiation of contempt proceedings under "the Act" - Held, contempt jurisdiction under "the Act" is an extraordinary remedy, and when a specific remedy under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of "the Code" is available in the same pending proceedings, invocation of contempt jurisdiction bypassing that remedy is not permissible. B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Jurisdiction - Held, invoking the contempt jurisdiction sdiction of the Court under "the Act" should not be hypersensitive or emotional but must be exercised judiciously - When the main proceedings in which the injunction was granted are still pending, the proper remedy lies within the same proceedings and not through separate contempt action. C. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Contempt proceedings versus Rule 2A of Order XXXIX - Remedies for breach of injunction - Held, Rule 2A of Order XXXIX provides an effective remedy for breach ach of injunction, which does not require proof of "willful" disobedience as under "the Act" - Contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and not where alternative remedies exist."
It is also pertinent to note that the defendants no.1 to 7 have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for modification, of the order dated 5.4.2024, which is presently pending before the learned Trial Court since 2.07.2025, immediately 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:57:55 ::: COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 5 whereafter petitioner filed the present contempt petition on 09.07.2025. For this reason, as well, this Court will be acting with undue haste if contempt proceedings are initiated against the respondents.
In view of the above noted position, the present contempt petition tition is dismissed.
Needless to say, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy under the law, if so advised.
Rule stands discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
January 21, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 05:57:55 :::