Breach of Induction Order under 39 Rule 2A?
Rampyaribai Wd/O Sukhdeo Daga and
Niladevi Wd/O Narayandas
By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21-3-2006 below Ex. 66 in Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 1998 refusing to review the order below Ex. 58 dated 12-1-2006 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati. There is a further prayer in the writ petition to direct the trial court to decide the application (Ex. 37) under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code before deciding the suit on merits along with other issues.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and having given my anxious thought in the matter, I find that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are absolutely independent proceedings. Whether there was a breach of injunction or not is a question to be decided upon evidence and the said question has no relevance with the issues in the suit which are to be decided on the merits of the suit. The eventuality of breach of injunction has occurred not at the time of filing of the suit but subsequent to the filing of the suit. The issues framed in the suit on merits of the suit cannot be mixed up with the trial of the application (Ex. 37) for breach of the injunction. The question of whether the petitioners would be prejudiced or not is relevant. What is relevant is the practice and procedure that is required to be adopted while deciding the suit and the application for breach of the injunction. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the application for breach of injunction should be separately registered as Misc. Judicial Case and should be tried by framing appropriate issues. Thus the proceedings for breach of injunction has absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the suit on merits. I fail to understand why the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are not separately registered and separately tried by the learned trial court.
Insofar as the delay in deciding the application (Ex. 37) is concerned, it appears that the order injunction that was made was carried in appeal before the District Judge and as jointly submitted before me by the counsel for the parties, same is now sub judice in the writ petition which is admitted by this court. The petitioners have also given a reason that because of the transfer of the case from one court to another, the said application could not be decided.