KANWAR SINGH SAINI versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 972 · Decided: 23-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
(2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 972 
KANWAR SINGH SAINI 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1798 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 2A 
and Order XX/ Rule 32 - Exercise of powers under Order 
C XXXIX Rule 2A - Scope - Decree passed in a civil suit for 
injunction on basis of admission/undertaking made by the 
defendant-appellant and the pleadings taken by him in his 
written statement - Alleged breach of the undertaking given 
to the Court - Application by decree holder under Order 
XXXIX Rule 2A CPC rlw ss.10, 11and12 of the 1971 Act-
D Trial court held that a prima facie case of contempt was made 
out and referred the matter to the High Court - High Court 
held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt and awarded 
him simple imprisonment for four months. -
Whether 
application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC Or under the 
E 1971 Act uould be entertained by the Civil Court and whether 
the matter could be referred to the High Court at all - Held: 
The proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A are available 
only during the pendency of the suit and not after conclusion 
of the trial of the suit - In the instant case, the undertaking 
F given to the court during the pendency of the suit, on the basis 
of which the suit itself was disposed of, became a part of the 
decree and breach of such undertaking was to be dealt with 
in execution proceedings under Order XX/ Rule 32 CPC and 
not by means of contempt proceedings - Even otherwise, it 
G was not desirable for the High Court to initiate criminal 
contempt proceedings for disobedience of the order of the 
injunction passed by the subordinate court, for the reason that 
where a decree is for an injunction, and the party against 
whom it has been passed has wilfully disobeyed it, the same 
H 
972 
KANWAR SINGH SAINI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI 
973 
may be executed by attachment of his property or by detention 
A 
in civil prison or both - The application under Order XXXIX 
Rule 2A CPC itself was not maintainable, . hence, all 
subsequent proceedings remained inconsequential -
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) and ss.10, 11 and 12 
- Maxims - Maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus". 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order X Rule 1, Order 
XIV, Rule 1 (5) and Order XV, Rule 1 - "First hearing of the 
suit" - Meaning of - Held: The date of "first hearing of a suit" 
under CPC is ordinarily understood to be the date on which 
the Court proposes to apply its mind to the contentions raised c 
by the parties in their respective pleadings and also to the 
documents filed by them for the purpose of framing the issues 
which are to be decided in the suit - The words the "first day 
of hearing" does not mean the day for the return of the 
summons or the returnable date, but the day on which the 
0 
court applies its mind to the case which ordinarily would be 
at the time when either the issues are determined or evidence 
is taken. 
Contempt of Court - Contempt proceedings - Purpose 
of - Held: The purpose of initiation of contempt proceedings 
E 
is two-fold:. to ensure the compliance of the order passed by 
the court; and to punish the contemnor as he has the audacity 
to challenge the majesty of law. 
Contempt of Court - Contempt proceedings - Nature of 
-
Standard of proof required - Held: The contempt F 
proceeding$ being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of 
proof requires in the same manner as in other criminal cases 
- The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all 
safeguards/rights which are provided in the Criminal 
Jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt -The case G 
should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. 
Contempt of Court - Civil contempt - Held: A mere 
disobedience by a party to a civil action of a specific order 
made by the court in the suit is civil contempt for the reason 
that it is for the sole benefit of the other party to the civil suit. 
H 
• • 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Jurisdiction - Conferment of -
Held: Conferment of 
jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be 
conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior 
court, and if the court passes order/decree having no 
jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the 
8 matter goes to the roots of the cause - Such an issue can be 
raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in 
appeal or execution - 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.