Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC Can Be Invoked Against Any Person Even If He/She Is Stranger To Suit: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court observed that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked against any party guilty of disobedience or breach of injunction even against a stranger to the suit.
The Court set aside the order of a trial court while holding that invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC only against the parties to the suit and not against the third parties was perverse and illegal.
A Single Bench of Justice M G Uma observed, “A bare reading of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC refers to disobedience or breach of injunction by 'any person'. There is no reference to the parties to the suit, but specific reference is to 'the person guilty of such disobedience or breach'. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that against the stranger Order XXXIX Rule 2A cannot be invoked, cannot be accepted.”
Advocate G. Balakrishna Shastry represented the petitioner, while HCGP Anukanksha Kalkeri appeared for the respondents.
The application of the petitioner was allowed and the police were directed to provide police protection to the petitioner to enforce the order of temporary injunction. The petitioner argued that in spite of the direction, the police were not ready to give protection to the plaintiff to enforce the order of temporary injunction.
The Trial Court had observed that violation of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was maintainable only against the parties to the suit and not against strangers and held that the only remedy available to the petitioner was to invoke contempt jurisdiction.
But the High Court clarified that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC refers to disobedience or breach of injunction by 'any person' and there was specific reference to 'the person guilty of such disobedience or breach'. The High Court therefore did not accept the findings of the trial court.
The Court set aside the order of the trial court holding that “The finding of the Trial Court that invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is only against the parties to the suit and not against the third parties and that the only remedy available to the petitioner to invoke contempt jurisdiction is perverse and illegal.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title: Smt. T. Geetha v. Sri. Ranganath & Ors. (2024:KHC:4874)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate G. Balakrishna Shastry
Respondents: HCGP Anukanksha Kalkeri