TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ausing any obstruction to the use of the said space as a gali. The trial Court which granted the temporary injunction order on 16.10.1984 required the defendant to maintain status-quo in regard to the suit property and subsequently the ad-interim order was made absolute. but within a month thereof plaintiff complained to the court that the defendant had put up a brick wall in the disputed space in utter defiance of the injunction order and moved for initiating action under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The trial court found that defendant had put up the obstruction wall in disobedience of the order of injunction and directed him to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Before the High Court, defendant adopted a twin approach though he did not dispute the factual position that the impugned obstruction was made by him. firstly he raised a contention that the Court cannot order his detention without ordering attachment of his property. Alternatively, he pleaded for mercy of the court on the facts that the obstruction has subsequently been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. It can be noted from the Objects and Reasons for the aforesaid amendment in 1976 that it is intended to make the provision applicable also to cases where injunction orders passed under Rule 1 are disobeyed, and for empowering a transferee court also to exercise such powers. Otherwise the deleted provision is the same as the present sub-rule 2A(1). Learned Single Judge Considered the said Rule in juxtaposition with Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code and has observed that the latter provision deals with execution of a decree of injunction against a judgment debtor while the former deals with ad-interim or interlocutory order of injunction by providing remedies for disobedience or breach of such orders. Learned Judge pointed out that under Order 21 Rule 32 the wording is that the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison or by the attachment of his property or by both . The use of the words or both according to the learned Judge must be understood differently from the words and may also as used in the case of interlocutory order of injunction as the former defin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A of the Order XXXIX CPC unnecessarily, superfuously and without any purpose. Those words, to my mind, necessarily suggest that the order of sending the contemner to civil prison may be passed only in addition to the order of attachment of his property. At the first blush the above interpretation appeared attractive. But on a closer scrutiny we feel that such interpretation is not sound and it may lead to tenuous results. No doubt the wording as framed in Order 21 Rule 32(1) would indicate that in enforcement of the decree for injunction a judgment-debtor can either be put in civil prison or his property can be attached or both the said courses can be resorted to. But sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 shows that the court need not resort to either of the above two courses and instead the court can direct the judgement- debtor the perform, the act required in the decree or the court can get the said act done through some other person appointed by the court at the cost of the judgement-debtor. Thus, in execution of a decree the Court can resort to a three fold operation against disobedience of the judgment- debtor in order to compel him to perform the act. But once the decree is enforced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily be understood as denoting a conjunctive sense. In Stroud's judicial Dictionary it is stated that the word and has generally a cumulative sense, but sometimes it is by force of a context read as or Maxwell on interpretation of Statutes has recognised the above use to carry out the interpretation of the legislature. This has been approved by this Court in Ishwar Singh vs. State of UP {AIR 1968 SC 1450}. The principle of Noscitur A Sociis can be profitably be used to construct the word and may also in the sub-rule. Hence the words and may also in Rule 2-A cannot be interpreted the context as denoting to a step which is permissible only as additional to attachment of property of the opposite party. If those words are interpreted like that it may lead to an anomalous situation. If the person who defies the injunction order has no property at all the court becomes totally powerless to deal with such a disobedient party. he would be immuned from all consequences even for any open defiance of a court order. No interpretation hall be allowed to bring about such a sterile or anomalous situation (vide Constitution Bench in Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Khubchand Baghel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
