Anil Kumar, J.@mdashHeard Sri Yogesh Gurnani, Advocate holding brief of Sri U.N. Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged noncompliance of the order dated 06.03.1987 (Annexure 6) passed in pending Second Appeal No. 120 of 1987 Bechu Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others.
3. Sri D.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the present contempt petition is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available Order XXXIX Rule 2 (A) CPC, for alleged noncompliance of the injunction/stay order passed by this Court in a Second Appeal.
4. So, for the abovesaid fact regarding passing of the order dated 06.03.1987 in a pending Second Appeal is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Accordingly, the core question which has to be decided in the present case is whether the contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 is maintainable in spite of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the applicant for alleged violation of the injunction/interim order granted by the Court in second appeal.
6. It is late in a day to quarrel that in a second appeal, an interim order/injunction order is granted by Court in view of the provisions as provided under order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. In case, if there is any breach or disobedience of the said order passed by Court, for disobedience of the same, the procedure is provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) C.P.C. which is as under :
"2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule I or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime the court directs his release."
7. In view of the above said facts, the present contempt petition filed by applicant under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act is not maintainable as the applicant got an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. available to him for breach of the injunction/interim order dated 06.03.1987 passed in pending second appeal, the said view taken by me gets support from the following judgments:
8. In the case of S.G. Pagaree Vs. Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others reported in 1987, AWC, 506, it is held by this Court that where alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. is available, proceeding under the contempt Courts Act should not be taken.
9. In the case of Pratap Narain Vs. Smt. Nomita Roy and others, reported in 1984, AWC, 567, the similar view was also expressed and it was held that remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. is far more adequate and satisfactory remedy as disobedience of an injunction order.
10. In the case of Savitri Devi(Smt.) Vs. Civil Judge(J.D.), Gorakhpur and others, 2003(1) ARC 545, it is held that once reaches the inescapable conclusion that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A are quashicriminal in nature and are meant to maintain the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the people so that the supremacy of law may prevail and to deter the people for mustering the courage to disobey the interim injunction passed by the Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the present contempt petition filed by the applicants under Section 12 of the Contempt Court''s Act for alleged noncompliance of the interim order/injunction order granted by this Court in pending second appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
