No Intention To Cause Prejudice Or Disregard Majesty Of Court: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Imposing Civil Imprisonment Under Order 39 Rule 2-A

The appellants approached the High Court, challenging the judgment dated April 3, 2025, imposing a punishment of civil imprisonment for one month under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same order was challenged by the respondent seeking enhancement of punishment by way of a cross objection.

The Single Bench of Justice Shailesh P. Brahme held, “I find that there is absence of any intention on the part of the appellants to cause any prejudice to the respondent or to disregard the majesty of the Court. The wording of Rule 2-A of Order 39 shows that it is the discretion of the Court either to order attachment of the property of a person guilty of disobedience and may also order such a person to be detained in civil prison. There is room to infer that drastic action of committing a person guilty of disobedience to the civil imprisonment is not contemplated.”

Advocate Milind M. Patil (Beedkar) represented the Appellants, while Advocate P. V. Sonpethkar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The matter pertains to a land dispute. The Appellants had filed a Regular Civil Suit for an injunction, contending that there was a partition in the family and they were allotted the land in question. The respondent had obstructed the peaceful possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred a Regular Civil Appeal. Before the Appellate Court, the respondent submitted an application for an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. This application was allowed, restraining the present appellants from creating any third-party interest in the suit land. It was contended by the respondent that in defiance of the order, the second appellant executed two sale deeds and the first appellant executed two sale deeds, which amounted to a breach of the injunction.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the theory put up by the appellants that they were not aware of the order as they were out of station and they were not informed of the order of injunction was rightly discarded by the Lower Appellate Court.

The Bench further noticed that all four sale deeds were executed by the appellants without ascertaining whether any order was passed. “In the sale deeds also, the appellants were bold enough to state that no dispute was pending before the Court. Considering the overall conduct of the appellants, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly come to conclusion that there is breach of order of injunction. The findings in the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse”, it held.

The Bench stated, “This Court would have confirmed the impugned order of civil imprisonment under normal circumstances. The willful disobedience as contemplated in Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC has to be assessed not only on the basis of conduct but intention, hardship or prejudice caused to respondent and the merits of the matter also.” As per the Bench, the Lower Appellate Court overlooked that the parties were at loggerheads and, despite close relations, the respondent initiated action against the appellants. “Present case falls short of calculated action with evil motive on the part of appellants”, it stated.

The Bench found that the drastic action in question was unwarranted. “In view of the supervening events, I find that appellants have made out a case that it was not willful disobedience. In civil application filed along with the appeal they have tendered apology which needs to be accepted”, it added.

Thus, finding the acts done by the appellant to be pardonable, the Bench allowed the Appeal from the order and dismissed the cross objection. “Impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Civil M.A.No.92 of 2022 is quashed and set aside”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Vijaykumar S/o Basantilal Kucheriya v. Sushilkumar (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:37656)

Click here to read/download Order