AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chidananda Ullal, J.—Heard Miss. Irfana, the counsel for the appellant, on admission. It is her case that the Court below had entered into an error in passing the impugned order.
Having gone through the impugned order, I do not want to contribute to that, for the language in Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC is clear, the same reads as hereunder:
"2A. Consequence of disobedience, or breach of injunction -(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, as may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release."
Admittedly the injunction was granted by this Court. The appellant herein had filed an application before the City Civil Court for violation of the injunction order. If the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC came to be filed before the Court, the City Civil Court was right in rejecting the I.A., for admittedly, that injunction was not granted by that Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
The appeal stands rejected right at the stage of admission.