1998 (9) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of detention order without ordering attachment of property - defendant had put up a brick wall in the disputed space in utter defiance of the injunction order - scope of Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code - Meaning of trio words and may also - HELD THAT - The words and may also appearing in R.2A were sought to be given a meaning that the course suggested thereafter in the Rule has to be resorted to as an optional additional step a resort to which would be impermissible without complying with the first course suggested in the Rule. The word also has different attributes and its meaning is not to be confined to further more . In legalistic use the word also can be employed to denote other meninges as well. It is open to the court to attach the property of the disobeying party and at the same time the court can order him to be detained in civil prison also if the court deems it necessary Similarly the court which orders the person to be detained in civil prison can also attach the property of that person. Both steps can be resorted to or one of them alone need be chosen. It is left to the court to decide on consideration of the fact situation in each case. It is pertinent to point out that Rule 2(3) of Order 39 of the Code before that sub-rule was deleted by Act 104 of 1976 has been interpreted by different High Courts in India and in almost all such decisions the High Courts have adopted a similar construction as we have made above. (that sub-section has been quoted earlier). It is almost the same as Rule 2A and the slight distinction is not material for us in this case. We therefore disagree with the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order regarding the scope of Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code. However we are in agreement with him that in view of the subsequent actions done by the respondent (by removing the obstruction and tendering unconditional apology to the court) it is not necessary to put the respondent in prison. We therefore dismiss this special leave petition subject to the clarification made above regarding the legal position.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court can order detention without ordering attachment of property u/r 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the conjunction "and may also" in Rule 2A(1) of Order 39.
3. Distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt.

Summary:

Issue 1: Detention Without Attachment of Property
The defendant defied an ad-interim injunction order by constructing a brick wall, leading the plaintiff to seek punitive action u/r 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court ordered the defendant's detention in civil prison for one month, which was upheld by the appellate court but quashed by the High Court. The High Court held that detention without prior attachment of property is contrary to law, a view contested by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "and may also" in Rule 2A(1)
The High Court interpreted the conjunction "and may also" in Rule 2A(1) to mean that detention in civil prison is an additional remedy to attachment of property, not an alternative. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that such an interpretation could lead to anomalous situations where a disobedient party with no property would be immune from consequences. The Court clarified that both attachment and detention are permissible, either separately or together, based on the facts of each case.

Issue 3: Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Contempt
The High Court distinguished between civil contempt, which benefits one party against another, and criminal contempt, which upholds the "majesty of law and the dignity of the Court." The Supreme Court noted that even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased, although its rigour may be toned down.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that detention requires prior attachment of property. The Court held that both remedies could be applied independently or together. However, considering the defendant's subsequent actions of removing the obstruction and tendering an unconditional apology, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to detain the defendant in prison and dismissed the special leave petition.