Bhalla and others /Respondents vs Ram Singh and others /Petitioners.

G.R. Majithia, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of a Single Judge of this Court convicting the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of the Courts Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The facts :

Nihala and others have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Singh and others from interfering in their peaceful possession. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and the same came up for hearing before the trial Judge, Kaithal, on 30.4.1983 and the following order was passed:

"Present: Shri R.K. Gaur, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on p.f. copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 17.5.1983.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs/applicants have filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for issue of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint during the pendency of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land in capacity as lessee under defendant No. 10. vide registered lease deed dated 3.4.72 for a term of 15 years running from kharif 1973. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit and copies of jamabandi for the year 198081. Certified copy of the decree sheet in Civil Suit No. 1472 of 1972 dated 14.11.1972 has also been produced whereby the lease hold rights were transferred in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants No. 5 to 9 and others. Now the defendants No. 1 to 4 are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are hereby restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint till 17.5.1983, plaintiffs to comply under Order 39 Rule 3. Pritam Singh s/o Dongar Singh filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the appellants Bhalla, Ram Kala, Teka, Ram Pal sons of Shishu, Inder Singh s/o Ram Lal Chincha s/o Jaggi, Chandgi s/o Mohan and Dhari s/o Sukha Ram (appellants No.1 to 8). Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and the same came up for hearing before Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal, on 7.5.1983 and the following order was passed:

"Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on P.F. Copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 25.5.1983.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs/applicant has filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for issue of temporary injunction. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the ground that he and his brother Ram Singh had been and are cultivating the land as lessees under defendant No. 1 for the last more than 20 years and that is no order of ejectment or dispossession from any competent authority. Now the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants many a time to desist themselves from their illegal activities. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit, copy of Khasra girdawaries and other documents on record. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally or to cut the harvest or to remove the wheat crop from the land in dispute till further orders. Plaintiffs to comply under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C."

Pritam Singh and others moved this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants for infringing the interim order dated 7.5.1983. The appellants have also moved the trial Judge for similar type of relief which was granted to them on April 30, 1983. The respondents for the reasons undisclosed did not move the trial Judge for taking action against the appellants under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''the Code''). If a person is aggrieved against infringement of any order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, he can move the Court for initiating action under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code. Order 39 Rule 2A of the Court is exhaustive. The Court on its being satisfied that the order of injunction was disobeyed by the other party, it could either attach the property of the person concerned or direct him that he be detained in Civil Prison. There are alternative punishment provided under Order 329 Rule 2A of the Code. The counsel for the respondents, could not give any justification for not invoking the jurisdiction of trial Court by moving a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, for disobeying the injunction order issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Apart from this, the appellants had moved the Civil Court and had got a restrained order against the respondents from interfering in their possession. Thus, both the parties were alleging that they were in possession and in this situation the interest of justice required that aggrieved party could have taken resort under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code. The respondents were not justified in moving this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants. We are satisfied that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the initiation of the contempt proceedings were wholly unjustified. Resultantly, the conviction cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside.