Injunction - Violation
of the order of injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a clear
evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed the order of the court, the
party cannot be punished for disobedience and sent to imprisonment.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
[R. BANUMATHI] AND [R.
SUBHASH REDDY] JJ.
January 22, 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
932 OF 2019
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (C) NO. 3608 OF 2017]
RAMASAMY
(PURCHASER) Appellant (s)
VERSUS
VENKATACHALAPATHI
(DECREE HOLDER) & ANR. Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preetika
Dwivedi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. A. T. M.
Rangaramanujam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C. Rubavathi, Adv. Mr.
P. Raja Ram, Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Raj, Adv.
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the
Judgment and order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in CRP (NPD) No. 3727 of 2015, in and by which, the learned Single Judge
affirmed the order of the Executing Court, finding the appellant guilty of
Contempt of Court for the wilful disobedience of the order of injunction dated 09.12.2004
passed in the suit for specific performance, being OS No. 162 of 2004 filed by
the first respondent.
3. The second respondent, Deivathal, had
entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 08.06.2004 in favour of the first
respondent. The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance, being
OS No. 162 of 2004 and in the said suit, interim injunction was granted on
09.12.2004 restraining the second respondent – Deivathal not to alienate the
suit property. The said suit for specific performance was decreed on
24.08.2006. Even when the said suit for specific performance was pending, it is
alleged that in violation of the interim injunction dated 09.12.2004, the
second respondent – Deivathal had executed the sale deed dated 17.06.2005 in
favour of the appellant who is none other than the father-inlaw of the second
respondent. After the suit for specific performance was decreed, the first respondent
has also got the sale deed dated 07.12.2006 executed through the process of the
Court. The appellant herein filed the suit for injunction, being OS No. 29 of
2007, which came to be dismissed. The first respondent also filed another suit,
being OS No. 61 of 2010 to declare the sale deed dated 17.05.2005 in favour of
the appellant as null and void and the said suit, being OS No. 61 of 2010 was also
decreed. The first appeal preferred by the appellant also came to be dismissed
on 24.02.2017. It is stated that the second appeal is pending beforethe High
Court.
4. In the present appeal, we are
concerned only with the alleged disobedience of the interim order dated 09.12.2004,
disobedience of which the appellant was found guilty. In the Execution Petition
filed by the first respondent under Order XXI Rule 32(5) and Order XXXIX Rule
2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Executing Court held that there was
willful disobedience of the order of the interim injunction dated 09.12.2004
and found both, the appellant as well as the second respondent, guilty of
Contempt of Court.
5. A Revision was filed by the second
respondent, being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014 challenging the order of the
Executing Court and the said revision was allowed on 11.11.2014. While allowing
the said revision filed by the second respondent – vendor, the learned Single
Judge observed that the materials available before the court did not indicate
that the second respondent (first defendant) is guilty of any violation,
whereas in the revision filed by the appellant in CRP (NPD) No. 3727 of 2015
dated 09.11.2016, the learned Single Judge took a different view by observing
that the sale deed was executed during the pendency of the order of injunction
and,therefore, the Executing Court rightly found the appellant guilty of
Contempt of Court for the disobedience of the order dated 09.12.2004.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned order and the other materials on record.
Violation of the order of injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a clear
evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed the order of the court, the
party cannot be punished for disobedience and sent to imprisonment. Though the
appellant is said to be the father-in-law of the second respondent, no
materials were placed before the court to show that he had the knowledge of the
interim order dated 09.12.2004. However, the fact remains that the second
respondent and the appellant are the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. The
second respondent-vendor having been found not guilty of contempt of court in
the revision (being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014), the appellant cannot be placed
in a worse situation than his vendor. It is also pertinent to point out that
the first respondent – Decreeholder also had got the sale deed executed on 07.12.2006.
The first respondent has also said to have taken the possession of the property
in dispute.7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering
that the appellant is an octogenarian, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal
is allowed. We make it clear that the order in this appeal shall not prejudice
the contention of the respective parties in the second appeal pending before
the High Court and the same shall be decided on its own merits.
No costs.