What is distinction between O 39 R 2A of CPC and O 21 R 32 of CPC?

 In KANWAR SINGH SAINI v. HIGH COURT OF

DELHI  the Supreme Court discussed categorically about the distinction between Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. It is held: "An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A lies only where disobedience/breach of injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. On the other hand in case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution Court under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross-examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC is not maintainable once the suit is decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under order XXI Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the Court has to exercise its discretion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC would also include the case of violation of breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of the decree. It is also observed that in an undertaking given to the Court during the pendency of the suit on the basis of which the suit itself has been disposed of becomes a part of the decree and breach of such undertaking is to be dealt with in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and no by way of contempt proceedings."

Supreme Court of India

Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court Of Delhi on 23 September, 2011

Print Page

Whether citing of overruled caselaw before court amounts to contempt of court?

The judgments of the High Court would bind the trial courts. If
an unnecessary reference to a judicial precedent or erroneous
submission in law is made, the judge considering the matter would
reject the reliance thereon or the submission made. However,
certainly reference to a judicial precedent cannot be termed a
contumacious act.
61. There is even an instance of the court considering the question
as to whether citing overruled precedent would amount to contempt
was considered by a ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the pronouncement reported at AIR 2001 P&H 49 Balbir
Singh Wasu v. Parbhandak Committee Gurudwara Sahib . It was
held thus:
"25. It was further submitted that the plaintiff's counsel
committed contempt of the trial Court as well as that of the
appellate Court and he committed contempt of this court also
by relying on AIR 1954 Pb. 125 which was overruled in AIR
1984 P&H 439. I do not think any contempt was committed by
the plaintiff if he cited AIR 1954 Pb. 125. After going through
both the judgments, the court could come to know that AIR
1954 Pb. 125 had been over-ruled in AIR 1984 P&H 439.
Even otherwise no contempt is made out if the plaintiff did not
intend duping the court. He had relied upon 1990 Civil Court
Cases 406 in which AIR 1984 P&H 439 had been relied upon.
By going through AIR 1984 P&H 439, the court would have
known that AIR 1954 Pb. 125 had been overruled. No
contempt was thus committed by the plaintiff/counsel."
Therefore, unless the intention was to mislead the court, erroneous
citing of an overruled judgment may not ipso facto and per se be
considered contumacious.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Date of decision : 9th March, 2017
 CCP(REF)No.3/2016
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .
v
DSP JAYANT KASHMIRI & ORS
CORAM:
 MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
 MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

Print Page

Whether Third Party Has Locus Standi To Present Civil Contempt Petition under contempt of court Act?

 It is a settled position in law that the power conferred
on a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
to punish for contempt of court must be exercised in
accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the
Act, petition to initiate action for civil contempt as defined
under Section 2(b) of the Act can be presented only by a
party aggrieved, except where the Court which passed the
order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to
the order, to initiate action for contempt of court. We may
state that Section 14 of the Act relates to procedure where - -

contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court
and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure in the case of
a criminal contempt; they are exceptions to the rule of locus
standi relating to civil contempt stated above.
6. The complainant is not a party to the order in his
personal capacity. As the complainant has presented this
petition in his personal capacity and in his personal name and
not as administrator of the Masjid, he cannot be said to be a
‘party aggrieved’. It is relevant to state that, in the order, no
liberty is given to any third party to initiate action for
contempt of court. Hence, the petition as brought is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. This order will not
come in the way of administrator of the Masjid to initiate
action in the matter in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED : 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
PRESENT
 MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
 MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CCC No.1149/2016 (CIVIL)

SRI SHAMSHUDDIN Vs SRI HARIS M.Y.
Citation: 2016 SCC ONLINE KAR 6468

Print Page

Whether contempt proceeding or breach of injunction proceeding can be initiated against garnishee who fails to pay decretal amount?

 At all events, if a garnishee, or a defendant, who is directed to pay any sum of money, does not pay the amount, the remedy is to levy execution and not in an action for contempt or disobedience/breach under order 39 Rule 2A. This is evident from Rule 46B of Order 21 read with Rule 11A of Order 38 of the Code. Contempt jurisdiction, either under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, or under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, is not intended to be used for enforcement of money decrees or directions/orders for payment of money. The process and concept of execution is different from process and concept of action for disobedience/contempt.

Supreme Court of India

Food Corporation Of India vs Sukh Prasad on 24 March, 2009

Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Markandey Katju

Reportable

CIVIL APPEAL NO.380 OF 2007

Citation:AIR 2009 SC 2330

Print Page