Bombay High Court Quashes Civil Imprisonment Order Under Order 39 Rule 2-A, Says There Was No Intention to Prejudice or Disregard the Court’s Authority
The appellants moved the Bombay High Court, contesting the judgment that imposed a one-month term of civil imprisonment under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order sentencing litigants in a property dispute to one month of civil imprisonment, noting the absence of any intention on their part to prejudice the opposing party or undermine the authority of the Court. The appellants had challenged the April 3, 2025 judgment passed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which imposed the punishment for alleged violation of an injunction order. The respondent, in turn, filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of the punishment.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Shailesh P. Brahme observed that there was no deliberate or malicious intent on the part of the appellants either to cause harm to the respondent or to show contempt for the Court’s authority. The Court noted that Order 39 Rule 2-A grants discretion to impose either attachment of property or civil imprisonment, and that the provision does not envisage civil imprisonment as an automatic or mandatory consequence. The Bench emphasized that such a drastic measure is not ordinarily contemplated unless circumstances clearly justify it.
Factual Background
The case arose from a land dispute in which the appellants had filed a Regular Civil Suit seeking an injunction, asserting that the property in question had been allotted to them following a family partition and that the respondent was interfering with their peaceful possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, prompting the appellants to file a Regular Civil Appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent sought interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was granted by the Appellate Court. The injunction restrained the appellants from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. The respondent subsequently alleged that the appellants violated this order by executing four sale deeds—two by each appellant—thereby breaching the injunction.
Court’s Reasoning
Upon examining the record, the High Court agreed with the Lower Appellate Court that the appellants’ claim of ignorance of the injunction order—on the ground that they were out of station—was untenable. The Bench observed that all four sale deeds were executed without verifying whether any court order was in force, and that the appellants had even declared in the sale deeds that no dispute was pending before any court. In view of this conduct, the finding that the injunction had been breached could not be termed perverse.
However, the Bench clarified that while it would ordinarily have upheld the order of civil imprisonment, the determination of “willful disobedience” under Order 39 Rule 2-A must take into account not just conduct, but also intent, the extent of prejudice caused, hardship, and the overall merits of the case. The Court noted that the parties were closely related and engaged in a prolonged dispute, and that the respondent’s action was not indicative of a calculated or malicious breach by the appellants.
The Bench held that the case did not demonstrate deliberate or sinister intent warranting such a severe punishment. Taking into account subsequent developments and the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants, the Court concluded that the disobedience was not willful and that the actions were pardonable.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the respondent’s cross-objection, and quashed the impugned judgment dated April 3, 2025 passed in Civil M.A. No. 92 of 2022, thereby setting aside the order of civil imprisonment.
