Kailash Chander vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The appellant had obtained an injunction order in his favour from the learned Additional District Judge,, Bhiwani on 10.10.1996. The operative part of the order is as follows:-

"So, the impugned order stands set aside and the injunction application is allowed restraining respondent No. 1 from decreeing the land in suit in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only."

It is alleged that after the order, respondent Nos. 1 gifted the property to the sons of respondents 2 and 3. The appellant filed an application for taking steps against respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 27.10.1998. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

"It has been specifically mentioned in the judgment dated 10.10.1996 that respondent No. 1 was restrained from decreeing the land in suit in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only. Respondent No. 1 has not suffered any decree in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He has transferred the suit land by means of a gift deed dated 21.11.1996 in favour of the sons of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents have no disobeyed the aforesaid order dated 10.10.1996 passed by Shri H.P. Singh, the then Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this application and reject the same."

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when the injunction was there, respondent No. 1 could not have gifted the land and by gifting the land, he has committed breach of the injunction order. It is not known as to why the appellant remained satisfied by the partial injunction granted by the learned Additional District Judge. The word "decreeing" admittedly means suffering a decree. Therefore, the injunction was restricted only to restraining respondent No. 1 from suffering a decree. Therefore, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge mentioned above.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the gift was not valid it could not have been accepted by the minors, and further it infringed the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, that is not a question which can be decided in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code.

Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before me the case of The State of Bihar Vs. Usha Devi and Another, . In that case it has been held as under:-

"If a Court comes to the conclusion that an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 or 2 have been disobeyed and by the contravention of that order the other party in the suit has done something for its own advantage to the prejudice of the other party, it is open to the Court under inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood as if the order passed by the court has not been contravened."

The above principle is accepted. However, it will not be applicable to the facts of the present case because it cannot be said that in this case the order of the Court was infringed and that there was contravention of the injunction order issued by the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that an application for punishing the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed and was dismissed. However, that need not be considered-in view of the above facts.

In view of the above position, this appeal is without merit and is dismissed.