Nandhini v. Jisha and Vinu

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1917 OF 2022`** ## **`IA 2/2022 IN O.S NO.424/2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NANDHINI AGED 60 YEARS W/O. LATE PUNNAKKAL BHASKARAN, THOTTASSERY HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, PIN - 680664 BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` 1JISHA AGED 31 YEARS D/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KOLATHAPPILLY VEEDU, MURIYAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN - 680683 2VINU AGED 42 YEARS S/O. LATE PUNNAKKAL BHASKARAN, KOTTASSERY HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, KUDA BUS STOP, NEAR ANGANVADY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN - 680683 BY ADVS. DHANYA P.ASHOKAN M.R.VENUGOPAL(K/000472/1994) S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 2 ``` **Dated this the 17[th] day of October, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed in I.A. No.2/2022 in O.S. No.424/2019 of the Court of the Munsiff, Kodungallur, the first defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the third defendant in the suit. The second defendant in the suit is reported to be no more. 2. The skeletal facts, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are: the second respondent is the son of the petitioner. The first respondent was the former wife of the second respondent. The marriage between the respondents was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda on 20.08.2011. The respondents have remarried. On the strength of a decree for recovery of money passed by the same Family Court in ``` OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 3 ``` O.P. No.152/2012, the first respondent purchased the property and building (in short property) of the petitioner and her late husband Bhaskaran – the deceased second defendant - in the sale conducted in the execution petition. Consequent to the sale, the petitioner and her husband vacated the property. They were residing in a tenanted premises and later on the streets. The parents of the first respondent, on learning about the desperate situation of the petitioner and her husband, suggested them to reside in the property. At that point of time, the first respondent was not in station. The petitioner’s husband passed away and his last rites were performed in the property. Side by side, the first respondent filed the suit, seeking a decree of injunction, to restrain the petitioner and her husband from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. By Ext.P2 order, the court below passed an order of temporary injunction. During the pendency of the suit, without any change of circumstances, to disturb the status of the petitioner, the ``` OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 4 ``` first respondent filed I.A. Nos.1/2022 and 2/2022 (Exts.P3 and P4) to initiate action against the petitioner and the second respondent under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘Code’) and to render police assistance to enforce Ext.P2 order. The petitioner opposed the application by filing Ext.P5 counter statement. Disregarding the objection of the petitioner, the court below passed the impugned Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is unsustainable in law, as it is passed without an enquiry as per the procedure established by law. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Dhanya P Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. As the second respondent is the son of the petitioner and the petitioner has only served notice of the original petition on the learned counsel for the first respondent before the court below, I dispense with further notice to the first respondent. ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 5`** 4. Sri. Vinod Bhat argued that Ext.P6 is unjustifiable and untenable because the same has been passed in flagrant violation of the mandate under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code. The court below ought to have conducted an enquiry before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner and the second respondent have flouted Ext.P2 order of injunction. Ext.P6 order is irregular and improper and is liable to be set aside. 5. Smt. Dhanya P Ashokan supported Ext.P6 order and contended that there is a long history behind the present suit, which has been suppressed by the petitioner. The first respondent had filed O.P. No.152/2012 against the petitioner, her late husband and the second respondent before the Family Court, for a decree for recovery of gold ornaments and other ancillary reliefs. The original petition was decreed as early as on 22.01.2013. The decree was laid to execution. Even though the petitioner filed O.P.(F.C) No.669/2016 before this Court, the original petition was dismissed by ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 6`** directing the Family Court to dispose of the execution petition expeditiously. Thereafter, the property was put up for sale and the first respondent purchased the same. The possession of the property was handed over to the first respondent after a long drawn battle on 07.06.2017. Although the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, the same was dismissed by this Court in Mat.Appeal No.402/2012 on 21.12.2021. When, the petitioner and the second respondent attempted to trespass into the property, the first respondent filed the present suit. It is after hearing both sides, that Ext.P2 order of temporary injunction was passed by the court below. The petitioner and the second respondent have flouted and violated Ext.P2 order by trespassing into the property. It was in the above factual background, the first respondent filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications. The petitioner has in Ext.P5 counter affidavit admitted that she is living in the property. Therefore, there is no necessity to conduct an empty enquiry in view of the ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 7`** admission of the petitioner. The impugned order is justifiable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The original petition may be dismissed. 6. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext.P6 order. ## 7. Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code reads as follows:- [2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.—(1) **In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made** , the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for 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.] “ ## 8. A reading of the above provision clearly shows ## that the court has to enter into a finding that there has ``` OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 8 ``` been disobedience of an order of injunction or other order made under Rule 1 and 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction has been granted under Order 39 of the Code by any of the parties. 9. It is trite, there should be reliable and acceptable evidence regarding the alleged violation of the injunction order as it involves penal consequences [ Read **Thuravoor Grama Panchayath v. Peter Jerry and others** [(2012(2) KHC 405] and **Madavana Masjidul Badariya Jamaath and another v. Seethi K.A. and others** [2017(4) KHC 770]. 10. In the case at hand, undoubtedly Ext.P2 order was passed after hearing both sides and the petitioner and the second respondent stand restrained from trespassing into the property. Thus, it is only to be inferred that the property is in the possession of the first respondent. Alleging violation of Ext.P2 order, the first respondent filed Ext.P3 application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, to prosecute the petitioner and the ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 9`** second respondent. The petitioner has filed Ext.P5 counter statement to Ext.P3 application. 11. The court below, on the basis of the pleadings in Exts.P3 and P5, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate her defence, has directed the Station House Officer, Kodungallur to implement Ext.P2 order. I am afraid that the course adopted by the court below is irregular and improper. Ext.P2 order is passed only to restrain the petitioner and second respondent from trespassing into the property. If the petitioner has violated Ext.P2 order, the court below would have to take action against them as provided under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, that too after an enquiry, as per procedure established by law, until they obey Ext.P2 order. Thus, I am of the firm view that Ext.P6 order is premature and warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, this Court does not for a moment endorse the high handed action of the petitioner and the second respondent if they have ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 10`** violated Ext.P2 order of injunction. Matters would have been different, if the first respondent had sought for a interlocutory mandatory injunction, to restore the ‘status quo’ ante prior to the passing of Ext.P2 order as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others** [1990 KHC 756]. In the above legal and factual background the court below is directed to decide Ext.P3 application as prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, after affording the parties an opportunity to establish their respective stands. In the result, I dispose of the original petition as follows:- (i) Ext.P6 order is set aside. (ii) The court below is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 application, after adverting to Ext.P5 counter statement and affording both parties an opportunity to establish their respective stands in their pleadings, and then decide whether the petitioner and ## **`OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 11`** second respondent have disobeyed Ext.P2 order and whether their property has to be attached or they have to be detained in civil prison. (iii) The court below is directed to complete the whole exercise in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 23.12.2022. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm17/10/2022 ``` OP(C) NO.1917 OF 2022 12 ``` ## **`A PPENDIX OF OP(C) 1917/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ``` ``` Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-11- 2019 IN I.A.825/2019 IN O.S.424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF I.A.1/2022 IN O.S. 424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF I.A.2/2022 IN O.S. 424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.2/2022 IN O.S. 424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ``` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-09-2022 IN I.A.2/2022 IN O.S. 424/2019, MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR ```