SAMEE KHAN versus BJNDU KHAN

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 01-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAMEE KHAN 
v. 
BJNDU KHAN 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order 39, Rule 2A-Scope of-Disobedience or breach of injunc-
C ti01t-Trial cow1 01dered the pe1:w11 guilty to be detained in civil p1iso11-High 
Cowt setting aside the order accepting the contention that cowt cannot detain 
such person without orde1ing his prope1ty to be attached-Held, it is open to 
the cowt to attach the property of disobeying pa!ty and at the same time coult 
can order him to be detained in civil p1iso11 also if the coult deems it 
necessary----Both the steps can be reso1ted to or one of them alone need be 
D c/10se1~oweve1; High Coult was 1ight that in view of the respondent sub-
sequently removing the obstmction and tende1ing unconditional apology, it is 
not necessary to put him in prison. 
Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khubc11a11d Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, 
E relied on. 
F 
G 
Ottapiurakkal Thazath Suppi & Ors. v. Alabi Mashur.Koyamza Kaya 
Kwzhi Koya, AIR (1917) Mad. 448; Nawal Kislwre Singh & Ors. v. Rajendra 
Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR (1976) Pat. 56 and Kapildeo Upadhyay v. 
Raghunatlz Pande;; AIR (1978) Pat. 212, referred to. 
' Interpretation of Statutes : 
Word 'and'--Held sometimes by force of context is read ·as 'or' : 
P1inciple of Noscitur a Sociis, applied. 
Mw.well 011 'Interpretation of Statutes', referred to. 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression 'and may also'· occuring in Order 39, Rule 2A, 
H C.P.C.-Meaning of 
244 
SAMEE KHAN v. BINDU KHAN 
. 245 
Vidya Charan Shukla v. Klmbchand Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, A 
relied on. 
Black's Law Dictionary and Stroud's Judicial Dictionmy, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 11992 of 1998. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated p.2.98 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B.C.R.P. No. 298 of 1996. 
S.K. Mehta for KL. Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner 
The following order of the Court was del\vered : 
Two neighbours are engaged in a long drawn fight in civil court on 
a small issue. The fight started at the lowest level (Munsiffs Court) and 
they have now reached this apex Court with a side issue which emanated 
therefrom. Defendant in the suit has defied an order of ad-interim injunc-
tion and plaintiff in the suit. moved for punitive action against him. The 
trial court ordered him to be put in prison for one month. That order was 
confirmed by the appellate Court, but the High Court in revision quashed 
it. Plaintiff is still chasing his adversary on that issue and he has reached 
this Court with the Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order. 
The subject-matter of the suit is a small space of land used as a 
means of access (gali) which abuts the house of both the parties. Plaintiff 
who filed the suit prayed for an ad-interim injunction order restraining the 
defendant from causing any obstruction to the use of the said space as a 
gali. The trial court which granted the temporary injunction order on 
16.10.1984 required the defendant to maintain status-quo in regard to the 
suit property and subsequently the ad-interim order was made absolute .. 
But within a month thereof plaintiff complained to the court that the 
defendant had put up a brick wall in the disputed space in utter defiance 
of the injunction order and moved for initiating action under Order 39 Rule 
2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The trial court 
found that defendant had put up the obstruction wall in disobedience of 
the order of injunction and directed him to be detained in civil prison for 
a period of one month. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Civil 
Judge (Senior Division). 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
Before the High Court, defendant adopted a twin approach though 
he did not dispute the factual position that the impugned obstruction was 
made by him. Firstly he raised a contention that the court cannot order his 
detention without ordering attachment of his property. Alternatively, he 
pleaded for mercy of the court on the facts that the obstruction has 
B subsequently been removed and he has tendered unconditional apology to 
the court. Learned single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan who heard 
the matter, accepted both pleas and exonerated him from punishment. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended first that the view 
taken by the High Court that no court can direct a contumacious party to 
C be detained in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.