Supreme Court upholds liability for wilful disobedience under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, strengthening judicial compliance.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON ORDER 39 RULE 2A CPC
Headline
Supreme Court rules on Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, holding the party for wilful disobedience liable despite subsequent dismissal.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India stated that a party remains liable for wilful disobedience of an injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), even if the order is set aside later.
Key Facts
- Case Name: SMT LAVANYA C & ANR vs. VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol
- Appellants sold suit property despite an order of injunction and prior undertaking.
- The High Court found them guilty as they did this willingly and imposed penalties.
- The Supreme Court of India upheld liability but modified penalties.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court reaffirmed Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which penalizes parties for violating order of injunctions willfully . It also stated the case of Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) to establish that violations remain punishable even if the order is revoked later.
Impact
The ruling of the Supreme Court strengthens judicial authority for compliance with orders of the court, stopping disregard of injunctions.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights the necessity of obeying orders of the court during litigation, focusing on judicial accountability and respect for legal directives.
Source
- Legal Glossary-Injunction
