Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Sadha Singh And Ors. on 24 January, 2002
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 24.2.1981 passed by the Distt. Judge, Patiala on appeal filed by the respondent-defendant against the order dated 6.12.1981, which was passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class. Patiala. The appeal has been allowed and the order of the Sub-Judge, 2nd Class dated 6.1.1981 has been reversed. It is pertinent to mention that the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiala has held that the respondents had violated the interim order dated 17.11.1975 passed by it directing the parties to maintain statusquo regarding possession of the land in dispute. The respondents were found guilty and were sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of three months each.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of one half of the land in dispute alleging that they used to serve Fateh Singh and in lieu of the services rendered by them to Fateh Singh, he executed a valid will in their favour on 4.8.1966 and the respondent-defendants No. 1 and 2 had no concern with the suit land. The averments made by the petitioner-plaintiff were controverted and it was asserted that the petitioner-plaintiff had no right to claim possession of th suit land from the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff-petitioner failed and vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.1980, the suit was dismissed. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has failed on 26.7.1983.
3. It was during the pendency of the suit before the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiata, that an interim order was passed on 17.11.1975 and respondent-defendants were found guilty and violating the same vide order dated 6.1.1981. On appeal, the order passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiala, and finding and sentence has been quashed while accepting the appeal. This revision petition is directed against the order setting-aside the sentence and finding of guilty passed by the Distt. Judge, Patiala.
4. The only question, which requires consideration survives in this revision petition is as to whether the interim order passed on 7.11.1975 would still require to be complied with when the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed and no decree requiring respondent-defendant has been drawn imposing an obligation on them to comply with the directions issued by the Court
5. Sh. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has argued that the aforementioned question is no longer res integra and the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A do not survive once the suit itself or the first appeal has been dismissed. He placed on record photocopies of the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court (which are marked as Annexures A and B), which, show that the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by both the Courts. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 221 and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rashpal Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh, A.I.R. 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299 and argued that the basic object of provisions contained in order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) (now Order 39 Rule 2-A) is to effect the enforcement or to secure the execution of the order. In support of this proposition, the observations, made by the Supreme Court in Rani Sonabati Kumari's case (supra) can be relied, which read as under:
"Though undoubtedly proceedings under. Order 39, Rule 2(3) Civil Procedure Code, have a punitive aspect as is evident from the contemner being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code for execution of a decree for a permanent injunction. Order 21, Rule 32 sets out the method by which such decrees could be executed and Clause (1) enacts where the party against whom a decree...for an injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity for obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced, in the case of a decree....for an injunction by this detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property or by both Clauses 2 and 3 of this rule practically reproduce the terms of Clauses 4 and 3 respectively or Order 39, Rule 2, and the provisions leave no room for doubt that the Order 39, Rule 2(3) is in essence only the mode for the enforcement of effectuation of an order of injunction."
6. The aforementioned observations of the Supreme Court were applied and followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashpal Singh (supra) and it was held that neither initiation or continuation of the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(3) would be competent after the injunction has been vacated by virtue of dismissal of the suit. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bhall and Ors. v. Ram Singh and Ors. 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 674.
7. Applying the principles laid down in the judgments referred above, the answer to the question posed in the para above has to be in the negative and it has to be held that no proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the code are competent to be continued after the order of interim injunction has been vacated by virtue of dismissal of the suit. So in the present case, the suit was dismissed on 5.9.1980 by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class and appeal dismissing the suit was also dismissed on 26.7.1983. In view of the afore mentioned legal position, this revision petition fails and the order passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Patiala dated 24.2.1981 is upheld. No order as to costs.