Non-compliance or Breach of Injunction
Q. What are consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction?
(1) In non-compliance or breach of order made under rules 1 and 2, the Court granting the injunction or making the order or any court to which the suit proceeding is transferred, may order the property of such wrongdoer to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding 3 months unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
Thus, the consequences of breach of injunction are:
(i) The ordering of the attachment of property in question.
(ii) Detention of the petition in civil prison.
(iii) In the case where the breach continues for more than a certain period, the property attached may be sold.
A person is liable to the proceedings against under Order XXXIX, rule 2A even if he was not personally a party to the suit provided he is shown to have been agent or servant of the defendant and to have violated the order of injunction inspite of the knowledge that there was such an order [Ram Prasad Singh v. Subhodh Prasad Singh, MANU/BH/0067/1983 : AIR 1983 Pat 278; Brijendra Prasad Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/0124/1963 : AIR 1963 Pat 449].
The expression ‘person’ occurring in sub-rule (2A) was employed merely compendiously to designate everyone in group, defendant, his agent, servants and workman and not for excluding any defendant against whom the order of injunction has primarily been passed otherwise the order of injunction would be frustrated and the power rendered ineffective and unmeaning if the machinery for enforcement specially enacted didn’t extend to everyone against whom the order of injunction is directed (Ram Prasad Singh v. Subhodh Prasad Singh, AIR 1983 Pat 298).
Shiv Kumar Chadha (Appellant) v. M.C.D., MANU/SC/0522/1993 : (1993) 3 SCC 161: JT 1993 (3) SC 238: (1993) 2 SCALE 772: (1993) 3 SCR 522, appeals have been filed against an order of Delhi High Court directing M.C.D. to issue notices to buildings where illegal constructions have been made. Appellants sought interference of Supreme Court with that part of the order stating:
“No civil suit will be entertained by any Court in Delhi in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by corporation with regard to sealing for demolition of any building or any part thereof.” Any person aggrieved by order of sealing/or demolition however, have the right of filing appeal to Appellate Tribunal under the Municipal Act, which had jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The unburned order clearly ousts the jurisdiction of a court in Delhi to entertain suit in connection with demolition of any part of building which according to corporation is unauthorised and illegal.
The Apex Court discussed law on interim relief (Temporary injunction):
The primary object of filing suit challenging validity of the order of demolition is to restrain such demolition with the intervention of the court. In such a suit the plaintiff is more interested in getting an order of interim injunction.
Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that unless defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable injury be caused to plaintiff. It is a matter of common knowledge that on many occasions even public interest also suffers in view of interim orders of injunction, because persons in whose favour such orders are passed are interested in perpetuating the contraventions made by them by delaying, the final disposal of such applications. The court should be always willing to extend its hand to protect citizen who is being wronged or is being deprived of the property without any authority of law or without following the procedure which are fundamental and vital in nature.
Power to grant injunction is extraordinary power vested in the Court to be exercised taking into consideration facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Court should be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice of hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed.
The imperative nature of the proviso has to the judged from contents of rule 3 to Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Before the proviso aforesaid was introduced. Rule 3 said “the Court shall in all cases, except where it appeals that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of application for same to be given to the opposite party.” The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of application to opposite party being of opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The requirement of recording reason for grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be mere formality. The requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under common law, must be informed why instead of following requirement of rule 3. The procedure prescribed in proviso is followed.
The Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstance. Such ex parte order have far reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that Court must record reason before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, the introduction of proviso by the parliament shall be a justice exercise and that part of rule 3 will be purposeless for all practical purposes. Ex parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency, where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion.
Ex parte Ad Interim Injunction (rule 3 of Order XXXIX)
Rule 3 of Order XXXIX provides that:
“The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party
What are consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction?