1. (After setting out the facts of the cases which are not necessary for the report the order proceeded. The respondent, have been guilty of a serious contempt in failing to appear before us. Their conduct, throughout has been fraudulent and they have deliberately defied the injunction issued by this Court. We do not at present-feel called on to deal with the respondents for their failure to comply with our order to appear in Court. Nor do we propose in regard to their disobedience of the injunction, to commit them in the exercise of our inherent and extensive jurisdiction in respect of contempt. We think that it is unnecessary to use the very large powers that the High Court possesses, as in our opinion the respondents can be adequately punished under the provisions of the Code.)
2. Under Section 94 of the CPC, the Court is empowered to commit a person guilty of disobedience of an in auction to the civil prison and to direct that his property shall be attached and sold.
3. O. 39, R. 2(3) prescribes the punishment and under it, the person in default may be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, and his property may be attached. The drafting of this rule, as has been pointed out in Ramprasad Singh v. Benares Bank, Ltd.(1) is somewhat inartistic, but there is no doubt that it applies to disobedience generally of an injunction granted by the Court. O. 39, R. 2(3) applies not only to disobedience of an order issued under Clauses (1) and (2) of that rule but has a more general application, it applies alike to disobedience of all injunctions issued under S. 94. See also Vidyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vicar of Suritkal Church(2).
4. We think that the respondents are deserving of no consideration and we order that they be detained in a civil jail for a period of six months and that their property be attached.
5. Then remains a matter of some importance to be considered. How is our order to be executed? S. 136 of the Code prescribes the procedure to be followed where any person is to be arrested or any property is to be attached under a provision not relating to the execution of decrees and such person resides or such property is situate outside the jurisdiction of the local limits of the Court. In this case the arrest and attachment are under the provisions of the Code not relating to the execution of decrees. So far the section applies. But there is some difficulty in regard to the other portion of the section which says that the person shall reside or the property shall be situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case our order is one made in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction and the High Court has jurisdiction on its appellate side over the whole of the Presidency. The respondents are outside the limits of the City and it may be said that though they are outside the limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court they are certainly within the limits of its appellate jurisdiction. We do not think that it is necessary to decide this point. Whether S. 136 strictly applies to the case or not there is nothing to prevent as from adopting the procedure laid down in that section and sending to the appropriate District Court the warrant of arrest and the order of attachment for necessary action being taken. The District Courts, their officers and staff are undoubtedly subject to the jurisdiction of and are under the supervision of the High Court and we see no difficulty in directing this mode of execution. The District Court Court on receipt of the warrant and order will adopt the procedure prescribed by S. 136.
6. It is suggested to us that we might send a special bailiff from this Court. This is more cumbrous and expensive than the procedure which we have resolved to adopt.
7. The respondents besides disobeying the order of injunction have behaved very dishonestly and fraudulently. Having first obtained an adjodurnment they utilized the interval to commit further acts of depredation. They again obtained an adjournment agreeing to give security and they failed to do so and not only did they fail to do so but they also wilfully kept away from Court with the deliberate object of evading its process. The 1st respondent, we understand, is the principal offender and he will, therefore, pay the costs of the application which we fix ab Rs. 200 (two hundered).
8. Since delivering the above judgment it has been brought to our notice that the 2nd respondent did not file in Court the counter-affidavit dated 27th March to which we have referred. The 1 case was argued on the footing that affidavit was in Court, and we had before, us only a copy of it. It would seem that Mr. T.M Krishnaswami Aiyar, the learned vakil for the 2nd respondent, furnished a copy to Mr. Sitarama Rao, but omitted to file the original affidavit in Court. So far as our judgment is concerned, this makes very little difference, for, without that affidavit the case of the respondent is distinctly worse. The order of attachment and warrant shall be transmitted to the District Court of Madura. The properties to be attached shall be specified in the order to be transmitted by this Court. Mr. Sitarama Rao undertakes to give a list of the properties in two weeks from this day.
9. A.A.O No. 59 of 1925 is dismissed with costs.
10. No order is necessary on any other application.
11. Appeal dismissed: Contempt application allowed.