@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.C. Mishra, J.@mdashArguments heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-12-2011 passed by First Civil Judge, Class I, Katni in MJC No. 02/2012, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC (for short ''CPC''), whereby plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners by way of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was rejected.
2. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from encroaching upon the suit house together with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for temporary injunction,'' The application was dismissed vide order dated 26-6-2010 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No. 69-A/10. The respondent preferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 17-3-2011 passed by III Addl. District Judge (FTC), Katni in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 24/10 and, accordingly, the petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent on the suit house.
3. A bare perusal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code would reveal that objection to jurisdiction was based on the fact that the injunction order, said to have been disobeyed, was passed by the Appellate Court and it was overruled by learned Civil Judge for the reason that "the Court granting injunction" means the Court, which was hearing the suit or the Court to which it has been transferred for trial.
4. While placing implicit reliance on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Allanoor vs. Ramgopal, 1987 MPWN 237, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned Order deserves to be set aside as one without jurisdiction because the alleged breach of injunction granted in appeal was punishable by the Appellate Court only. However, in that case, the earlier decision to the contrary as rendered in Balu vs. Nandram, 1969 MPLJ Note 30, though concerning the provision of Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the un-amended Code, does not find reference. The provision of Order 39, Rule 2(3) (supra), was omitted and a new Rule, i.e., Order 39, Rule 2-A was inserted by Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 1-2-1977 in accordance with the suggestion given by Macpherson, J., while speaking for the Bench for Patna High Court in Jang Bahadur Singh vs. Chhabila Koiri, AIR 1936 Patna 23, but, fact of the matter is that the power to punish disobedience of injunction continued to remain with the Court ordering injunction. For a ready reference, the provisions may be reproduced thus :--
|
Rule 2 (3) |
Rule 2-A Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction |
|
In case of disobedience, or of breach of any such terms, the Court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. |
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 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. |
5. In other words, both the provisions are substantially similar and, therefore, as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in
6. Moreover, the only decision viz., Shashank vs. Naraindas, 1973 MPLJ 684 = AIR 1973 MP 303, distinguished in Allanoor''s case (supra), also relates to interpretation of the words "Court granting an injunction". Explaining the effect of sections 36, 37 and 150 of the CPC in Shashank''s case (supra), the then Chief Justice, even without making reference to the view taken in Balu''s case (supra), virtually re-affirmed the same after considering judgments of the various High Courts on the question as to whether the Court to which the suit is transferred is competent to entertain an application under Order 39, Rule 2 (3). It was observed:--
"Words "Court granting an injunction" can only be understood to mean the Court which is trying the suit in which the injunction is granted and which has the jurisdiction to grant an injunction."
7. To sum up, the decision in the case of Allanoor (supra), was rendered not only by failing to take note of an earlier decision on the point but also in ignorance of relevant analogous statutory provisions as contained in sections 36 and 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is, therefore, required to be ignored as per in curium. Further, in view of well settled position of law on the point, the decision need not be referred to a Division Bench.
8. Needless to say that the order under challenge does not suffer from any palpable error of jurisdiction. In the result, the revision stands dismissed.
