Whether person can be held guilty for breach of injunction order if there is unintentional disobedience?

 It is settled position that before a party can be punished for disobeying order under Rule 2-A of Order 39, it must be established by the other party that the order which is alleged to have been disobeyed was clear, unambiguous and the party was not under a bona fide apprehension as to the scope of such an order. It is equally true that when the injunction is in force, irrespective of the legality of the orders, the party is bound to obey the orders of the Court. In case of disobedience; such a party is liable to be proceeded under Order 39, Rule 2A(1) of the Code. The Jurisdiction of the Court to punish a contumacious party is to vindicate the majesty of rule of law. It is not intended to benefit the parties. It is equally settled that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and their servants etc. from doing certain activity, the persons who are not party to the lis, cannot be held responsible in case of disobedience of the orders.
It is well settled that it is only wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which invites punitive action depriving a person of his personal liberty and property. The expression "wilful" means a deliberate or voluntary or Intentional Act. Unintentional disobedience is not enough to justify an action against the defaulter under Rule 3 of Order 39.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

F.A.O. Nos. 319 and 426 of 2001

Decided On: 08.01.2003

 Sushil Mittal and Anr.
Vs.
 R.D. Bhardwaj and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kamlesh Sharma, Actg. C.J. and K.C. Sood, J.

Citation: 2004(1) Civil court cases341 HP

Print Page