VIJAYKUMAR S/O BASANTILAL KUCHERIYA V. SUSHILKUMA 2025:BHC-AUG:37656:

DATE: 24/12/2025

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

FACTS:

The dispute arose between closely related family members concerning agricultural land bearing Gut No. 84. The appellants claimed that a family partition had taken place, pursuant to which Gut No. 84 was allotted to them and they were in peaceful possession of the property. Alleging obstruction by the respondent, they instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 250 of 2015 seeking a permanent injunction. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on 11 February 2020, following which the appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2020 before the Appellate Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exhibit 12. On 14 July 2022, the Appellate Court granted an injunction restraining the appellants from creating any third-party interest in the suit land. Despite this order, the appellants executed four sale deeds between 18 and 19 July 2022. Alleging wilful breach of the injunction, the respondent initiated proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, resulting in the Appellate Court holding the appellants guilty and sentencing them to civil imprisonment for one month. The appellants challenged this order, while the respondent sought enhancement of punishment through a cross-objection.

ISSUES:

The principal issues before the Court were whether the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the injunction order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC so as to attract punishment under Order 39 Rule 2-A, and whether the punishment of civil imprisonment imposed by the Lower Appellate Court was justified. Ancillary to this was the question of whether the respondent was entitled to enhancement of punishment in view of the appellants’ conduct.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and dismissed the respondent’s cross-objection. It quashed and set aside the order dated 3 April 2025 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2022, which had imposed civil imprisonment on the appellants. Consequently, all proceedings arising from the impugned order stood disposed of.

The Court carefully examined the scope of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and reiterated that punishment under the provision can be imposed only when disobedience of an injunction is wilful, conscious, and deliberate. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, the Court emphasised that “wilful disobedience” imports a mental element and requires proof of intentional and calculated defiance, not mere technical or inadvertent non-compliance. While the appellants had executed sale deeds after the injunction order, the Court found that their conduct did not reflect a calculated action with an evil motive or an intention to undermine the authority of the Court.

The Court further noted that the respondent did not claim any independent title or interest in the suit property and that the appellants’ ownership itself was not in dispute. The alienations, even if made, would in any event be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, thereby causing no demonstrable prejudice to the respondent. Considering the family relationship between the parties, the absence of substantial harm, the subsequent dismissal of the appeal, and the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants, the Court held that imposing the drastic punishment of civil imprisonment was unwarranted. It concluded that the case fell short of the stringent standard required to establish wilful disobedience and that the acts of the appellants were pardonable rather than deserving of enhanced punishment.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in invoking punitive powers under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the execution of sale deeds in the face of an injunction order ordinarily raises a strong presumption of disobedience, the Court underscored that the provision is not attracted by mere violation in a technical sense. Instead, the ruling reinforces the settled principle that wilful disobedience must be established through clear evidence of conscious, deliberate, and intentional defiance of a court order. By relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, the Court aligned its reasoning with the view that contempt-like consequences under civil law require a higher threshold, given their quasi-criminal nature.

Equally significant is the Court’s emphasis on proportionality and contextual assessment. The analysis went beyond the act of alienation to examine surrounding circumstances such as the familial relationship between the parties, the absence of any competing title claim by the respondent, and the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens, which neutralised any potential prejudice. The Court’s refusal to enhance punishment and its decision to set aside civil imprisonment reflect a balancing of judicial authority with fairness, recognising that the purpose of injunctions is to preserve status quo rather than to punish in the absence of demonstrable harm or mala fide intent. The judgment thus serves as an important reminder that sanctions under Order 39 Rule 2-A are discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, with due regard to intent, prejudice, and the overall equities of the case.