Non-parties found aiding or abetting violation of an injunction can face action under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC | Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the ambit of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for action in cases of disobedience or breach of injunction orders, extends beyond the parties to the suit and covers any individual who violates a court’s direction. Dismissing a petition seeking to set aside contempt proceedings, the Court observed that even non-parties may be proceeded against if they knowingly aid or abet the breach of an injunction, leaving it to the trial court to determine such involvement based on evidence.
The dispute originated from proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, initiated by Pushpa Devi against Ram Pyari and others for alleged disobedience of an interim injunction order directing maintenance of status quo over a disputed parcel of land. Santosh Kumar, a police official, was subsequently added as a respondent in those proceedings. The allegation against him was that despite being informed about the injunction order, he failed to restrain the opposite party from carrying out digging work on the suit property and instead encouraged the violation. The respondents claimed that the police, led by Santosh Kumar, remained at the spot while the prohibited work continued and did not act against the driver operating the machinery used for the excavation.
Santosh Kumar approached the High Court challenging the initiation of proceedings against him. He contended that he had reached the site only in response to a complaint received at Police Station Jhandutta to maintain public order and was not aware of any injunction order at that time. He asserted that the family members of Pushpa Devi were asked to produce a copy of the court’s direction but failed to do so, and that he was wrongfully accused of aiding the breach. He further maintained that since he was not a party to the original civil suit, the contempt proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Pushpa Devi’s counsel opposed the petition, arguing that Santosh Kumar had knowingly assisted the private respondents in violating the injunction and therefore could not escape liability under Order 39 Rule 2-A. The High Court examined the provision and relevant judicial precedents, holding that the term “person” in the rule includes not only the parties to the suit but also any individual who, with knowledge of an injunction, aids or abets its breach.
The Court noted that Order 39 Rule 2-A deals with the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction and that the language of the provision refers to “any person” guilty of such disobedience or breach. The judgment states, “This provision per se does not restrict itself to the parties in the lis. The expression used therein is ‘person’.”
The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association (AIR 1991 Madras 323), which held that even third parties or strangers could be held liable for civil contempt if they had knowledge of an injunction order and aided or abetted its violation. The Madras High Court had stated, “A third party or a stranger, if he had aided or abetted the violation with notice or knowledge of the order of injunction, is guilty of civil contempt.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court also cited the decision of the Orissa High Court in Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra v. Jaya Krushna Mohapatra and Others (AIR 1994 Orissa 173), where it was held that the term “person” is wide enough to include an agent, servant, or workman, and that injunction orders could extend to them if they acted in breach of such directions. That court had clarified, “Persons who are not parties where order of injunction is passed are normally not to be proceeded against... however, the exception is that where it is alleged and proved that the person who violated the order of injunction was an agent or servant or workman of the person against whom the order of injunction was passed, the proceeding can be validly initiated against such person.”
Additionally, the Himachal Pradesh High Court cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Smt. T. Geetha v. Sri Ranganth & Others (W.P. No. 54219 of 2019, decided on 05.02.2024), which held that Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC applies to “any person” guilty of breach and not only to parties in the suit.
Based on these precedents, Justice Goel observed, “The consistent view of various High Courts is that a person who has not been restrained by an order of injunction cannot be committed for being in breach of it; however, he may be committed for contempt if, with knowledge of injunction, he aids and abets its breach.”
Justice Goel recorded, “This Court is of the considered view that as far as this exercise is concerned, the same shall have to be undergone in the Court where the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code are pending.” The Court added that in those proceedings, “the present petitioner can prove his innocence by proving that (a) the order was not within his knowledge, (b) that he did not disobey the order, (c) that he has committed no act which can be inferred to be an act which can be construed to be the disobedience of the Court order, (d) that the Court order was neither produced nor made available for the perusal of the Court.”
“As this Court is of the considered view that no illegality was committed by the learned Court below in issuing the process to the petitioner, as the process can also be issued under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code to a stranger, these proceedings are dismissed.”
The Court further directed that liberty was reserved to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the trial court. It also ordered that the trial court should proceed in the matter “in light of the case law discussed hereinabove.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar v. Pushpa Devi & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:32837
Case Number: CMPMO No. 216 of 2022
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
