Rudraiah Complainant v. State Of Karnataka And Others Accused., Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant obtained temporary injunction orders against the accused in two suits, O.S No. 132 of 1976 and O.S No. 297 of 1976, filed before the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur. Both suits involved injunctions related to possession and title of certain suit land. The injunction orders were confirmed by the first appellate court. Despite these injunctions, the defendants, through their agents, allegedly began disobeying the court's orders. Consequently, the complainant filed the present contempt petition against various state officials and others for breaching the injunction orders. The petition seeks to enforce compliance with the injunctions granted in the suits.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a contempt petition is maintainable for disobedience of temporary injunction orders passed under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) or whether such disobedience must be dealt with under the special provisions of Rule 2A of Order 39, C.P.C.

Whether the general provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked by a decree-holder to enforce temporary injunction orders passed by a subordinate court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221)	Summary jurisdiction of contempt must be exercised with caution; contempt is for administration of justice, not for enforcing party rights.	The court relied on this precedent to emphasize that contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for enforcement of injunction orders and should be used sparingly.
(1964) 68 Cal WN 148	Contempt jurisdiction reserved for cases affecting administration of justice.	Referenced to support the principle that contempt should not be invoked lightly in disputes between parties.
AIR 1951 Pat 231	Contempt jurisdiction principles.	Used to illustrate the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction in enforcing court orders.
AIR 1966 Mad 21	Contempt jurisdiction and its cautious application.	Reinforced the view that contempt is not a remedy for routine enforcement of injunctions.
AIR 1971 All 231	Contempt jurisdiction principles.	Supported the court’s reasoning on the prudence of exercising contempt jurisdiction.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221)

Summary jurisdiction of contempt must be exercised with caution; contempt is for administration of justice, not for enforcing party rights.

The court relied on this precedent to emphasize that contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for enforcement of injunction orders and should be used sparingly.

(1964) 68 Cal WN 148

Contempt jurisdiction reserved for cases affecting administration of justice.

Referenced to support the principle that contempt should not be invoked lightly in disputes between parties.

AIR 1951 Pat 231

Contempt jurisdiction principles.

Used to illustrate the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction in enforcing court orders.

AIR 1966 Mad 21

Contempt jurisdiction and its cautious application.

Reinforced the view that contempt is not a remedy for routine enforcement of injunctions.

AIR 1971 All 231

Contempt jurisdiction principles.

Supported the court’s reasoning on the prudence of exercising contempt jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the injunction orders and the appropriate legal remedy for their enforcement. It noted that disobedience of temporary injunction orders issued under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39, C.P.C., is addressed specifically under Rule 2A of Order 39, which provides for penalties including forfeiture of property and civil imprisonment for up to three months. This special provision is based on the principle of contempt of court but is distinct from the general Contempt of Courts Act. The court emphasized the established legal principle that special law provisions prevail over general laws, thereby precluding the invocation of the general contempt jurisdiction for enforcement of such injunctions. It further cited authoritative Supreme Court precedent establishing that contempt jurisdiction is not a remedy for enforcing party rights but is reserved for protecting the administration of justice and the dignity of judicial tribunals. Given that the present petition sought speedy execution of an interim injunction requiring detailed inquiry about the suit land and scope of the order, the court held that the matter is more appropriately dealt with under Rule 2A of Order 39, C.P.C., and not by invoking contempt jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the contempt petition on the basis that the proper remedy for disobedience of temporary injunction orders lies under the special procedure of Rule 2A of Order 39, C.P.C., and not under the general Contempt of Courts Act. This decision limits the use of contempt jurisdiction, preventing the floodgate of litigation that would arise if every breach of subordinate court injunctions were treated as contempt. The ruling confines enforcement of such injunctions to the specific procedural mechanism provided in the C.P.C., thereby maintaining judicial discipline and procedural propriety. No new precedent was set beyond the application of established principles.

Rudraiah Complainant v. State Of Karnataka And Others Accused.

Sabhahit, J.:— This contempt petition is filed on the averments that the complainant obtained an order of temporary injunction against the accused from the trial court in O.S No. 132 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur. Subsequently he filed another suit O.S No. 297 of 1976 for declaration of title and injunction against the accused. In both the suits he obtained temporary injunction order. The said orders were confirmed by the first appellate Court. It is his case now that the defendants in the suits, through their agents, have started disobeying the injunction order. Hence, the present petition for contempt of Court. It is against the State of Karnataka, one Sri C. Srinivasan, Assistant Commissioner, Sri Aswathaiah, Block Development Officer, Sri Lakshman, Junior Engineer and the Sub-Inspector of Police and several others.

2. Order issued under I.A.I in O.S Nos. 132 of 1976 and 297 of 1976 dated 31-3-1980, passed by the Principal Munsiff at Tumkur Reads:

“I.A.I is allowed in both the suits in the following terms.

Temporary injunction is granted against the defendants in respect of the suit land excepting 1 acre 20 guntas lying between the boundaries as below;

To North: S. No. 9 To East S. No. 6 which is Gramathana.

To South Remaining extent. To West-Road and Re. S. No. 2.”

3. Against this common order plaintiff went up in Appeal before the Civil Judge, Tumkur, at M.A No. 8 of 1980. On hearing the learned Civil Judge passed an ad interim order on 7-4-1980 in the following terms:

“Injunction granted restraining the respondents 5, 6, 8, 9, 15 & 16 from interfering with applicants possession of the suit property pending disposal of the appeal. Issue order accordingly with notice of the application to all the respondents returnable by hearing date.”

4. Thereafter the present petition for contempt is filed by the plaintiff before this court on 6-6-1980. The complainant has also averred in the petition, that he filed a complaint against some of the present accused for rioting etc. before the police.

5. In cases of disobedience or breach of injunction order issued temporarily during the pendency of a suit, either under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39, C.P.C action is contemplated by the very court which issues the injunction order under Rule 2A of Order 39, C.P.C It contemplates the forfeiture of property as also putting of the person who commits breach into civil prison for a period not exceeding three months. The provision thereunder is obviously based on the principle of contempt of Court.

6. That being so, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked by the decree holder, for forcing the party to obey the injunction order. It is a well settled principle of law that when there is special law and general law, the provisions of the special law prevail over the general law and when special procedure and special provision are contained in the C.P.C itself under Order 39 Rule 2A for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be invoked. If such a course encouraged holding that it amounts to contempt of court, when an order of subordinate court is not obeyed, it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. Every decree-holder can rush to this court stating that the decree passed by a subordinate court is not obeyed. That is not the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act.

7. The Supreme Court of India in the case Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221) has observed at page 230, inter alia thus:—

“The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice”. (Per Grover,) Contempt of court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is not also a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed enquiry, it must be left to the court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it (Vide (1964) 68 Cal WN 148 : AIR 1951 Pat 231 : AIR 1966 Mad 21 and AIR 1971 All 231).

8. Hence, we hold that the present petition which is merely directed by way of speedy executipn of an interim injunction order, which requires a detailed enquiry with regard to suit land and the scope of the order, which can be entertained and enquired into more properly under Rule 2A of Order 39 C.P.C cannot entertained under contempt jurisdiction and accordingly we dismiss it.

9. Petition dismissed.

C.C.C (Civil) No. 80 of 1980

Rudraiah Complainant v. State Of Karnataka And Others Accused.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rudraiah Complainant v. State Of Karnataka And Others Accused.

Comments