Abdul Razack Vs. Matadin Agarwal  INSC 192 (28 March 1994)
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Bharucha S.P. (J)
1994 SCC (4) 673
This appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh passed in LPA No. 193 of 1993 upsetting the orders of a
learned Single Judge, passed in breach of injunction proceedings.
appellant herein was injuncted by the court for alienating certain properties.
According to the appellant before he was served with the injunction he had
disposed of those properties. The price fetched was Rs 75,000. The breach of
the injunction was reported to the High Court.
Arising out of SLP No. 17226 of 1993 674 learned Single Judge took the view
that the appellant had evaded service of the injunction and had indulged in a
hide and seek game and, therefore, deserved to be dealt with severely. The
appellant was thus ordered to be detained in civil prison for three months. The
appellant then showed cause to the learned Single Judge against the action
ordered. He pleaded that he was not aware of the issuance of injunction and
that the 'refusal' recorded by the postman on the registered covered letter
sent to him was wrong. The learned Single Judge impressed by the version of the
appellant recalled the order of detention and ordered instead attachment of the
sum of Rs 75,000, the price which the sold property had fetched, lying with the
Vijaya Bank, Secunderabad. Reflected inherently in the said order was recall of
the order of detention since the court effected the said attachment and
directed the release of the appellant. This view of the learned Single Judge
was upset by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal taking
the view that it was not open to the learned Single Judge under the guise of a
review to modify the sentence and order the appellant's release by exonerating
him from his liability for flouting the injunction.
do not agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2-A of Order 39 of Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :
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, of 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,
and 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
orders which the court could pass under the aforequoted provision includes an
order of recall since it can suspend the detention of the defaulter and direct
his release. On what terms would the court take such a step would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case.
it cannot ever be said that the court had no power to pass related subsequent
orders after ordering detention in civil prison of a defaulter. Its subsequent
powers, which are part and parcel of the original powers, cannot be termed as
review powers as has been viewed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The
order of the learned Single Judge thus squarely fell within sub-rule (1) of
Rule 2-A of Order 39 of CPC; this being neither a case under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 nor a criminal or quasi- criminal action. This distinction
needed to be kept in mind when dealing with a matter under sub-rule (1) of Rule
2-A of Order 39 of Civil Procedure Code.
are, therefore, of the view that the Division Bench was in error in upsetting
the orders of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High 675 Court and
restore that the learned Single Judge. There will be no order as to costs.