SAMEE KHAN versus BJNDU KHAN

SAMEE KHAN versus BJNDU KHAN

It is open to the court to attach the property of the disobeying party and at the same time order detention in civil prison, or to choose one remedy alone; attachment is not a prerequisite for detention. The High Court's contrary interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2A is incorrect.

Parties
Petitioner: SAMEE KHAN; Respondent: BINDU KHAN
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Order in S.b.c.r.p. No. 298 of 1996
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Disobedience of Injunction, Order 39 Rule 2 a CPC, Interpretation of Statutory Language
Civil Procedure Disobedience of Injunction Order 39 Rule 2 a CPC Interpretation of Statutory Language

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMEE KHAN

Petitioner

BINDU KHAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Order in S.b.c.r.p. No. 298 of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC attachment of property is a prerequisite for ordering civil imprisonment for disobedience of an injunction
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'and may also' in Order 39 Rule 2A CPC

Ratio Decidendi

It is open to the court to attach the property of the disobeying party and at the same time order detention in civil prison, or to choose one remedy alone; attachment is not a prerequisite for detention. The High Court's contrary interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2A is incorrect.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special leave petition dismissed
  • Clarification issued regarding legal position on Order 39 Rule 2A CPC