JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. In both these revisions order dated Feb. 2, 1995 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City whereby Shri Santosh Kumar and Shiv Kumar (for short the contemners) have been punished under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Relevant farts giving rise to these revisions are that plaintiff Shri Deepak Gupta (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the contemners defendants (for short the contemners) in the trial court. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed praying therein that the Central Circuit Cine Association may be restrained from de-registering M/s. Deepak Films and from cancelling their registration for distribution of film KOHRAM. Learned trial court passed an adinterim order directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted another application under Section 151 CPC stating therein that inspite of the courts order maintaining status quo, their registration has been cancelled as such the Central Circuit Cine Association may be directed to register and grant the authority to distribution the film in Rajasthan.
3. Learned trial court after hearing the parties passed a composite order on April 18, 1994 deciding both the applications. The said order was assailed in appeal and in revision but without success.
4. The plaintiff moved a petition under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned trial court held vide order dated Sept. 16, 1994 the contemners guilty of contempt and directed to detain contemners Santosh Kumar and Shiv Kumar in the civil prison for a term of three months and their property in the sum of Rs. 15,000 was ordered to be attached.
5. The contemners preferred appeal against the said order. Learned appellate court vide its orders dated Feb. 2, 1995 modified the order of the trial court and the contemners were punished to suffer sentence till rising of the court only. In addition to this their property in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also ordered to be attached.
6. This order has been assailed by the plaintiff as well as the contemners in the intant revisions.
7. It is necessary at this juncture to refer the relevant provisions. Rule 2 A of Order 39 CPC provides that:
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 granted the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceedings 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.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision demonstrates that a person found guilty of contempt may be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months and his property may also be attached for a period not exceeding one year. If after this period the breach of the courts order contemners, the property so attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party.
8. Learned appellate court punished the contemners to suffer sentence till rising of the court and their property amounting to Rs. 5,000/- has been ordered to be attached. A look at the order of the appellate court goes to show that during the pendency of appeal the interim orders passed by the trial court were complied with and the contemners tendered unconditional apology.
9. After giving my thoughful consideration to the rival contentions I am of (he view that the provisions contained in Order 32 Rule 2 A should be strictly construed and they can not be read as providing any penalty other than that specifically mentioned in it.
10. In Sita Ram v. Ganesh Das it was held that the purpose of order 39 Rule 2A is not to punish a person who disobeys injunction order, the purpose is to enforce the order of injunction. Where the wrong done by disobedience of the order is remedied and status quo ante is brought, the delinquent can not be sent in prison nor is the attachment of property needed.
11. This Court (Hon’ble D.P. Gupta J. as he then was) in Satya Narain v. Ram Niwas observed thus:
The action on the part of the Contemners, which is capable of purging the contempt, is a clear unqualified apology tendered at the earliest opportunity. The court must be satisfied that the Contemners was really showing contrition for his conduct and the penitence must be apparent and real. Otherwise, mere tendering an apology in order to escape from punishment being imposed by the court is a mere contrivance and cannot be justifiably accepted by the Court.
12. In Pankaj Sharma v. C.S. Bansal 1993 (1) WLC (Raj.) 338 this Court (Hon’ble M.R. Calla J. as he then was) indicated that unconditional apology which lacks bonafides, cannot be accepted.
13. Balram Singh v. Bhikam Chand was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus:
It would be a travesty of justice if the court were to allow gross contempt of court to go unpunished without an adequate sentence.
14. In the case on hand the learned appellate court punished the contemners to suffer such sentence which is not provided under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person found guilty of contempt may be detained in civil prison and not in a court room for a term not exceeding three months. Even if the court wants to detain the contemner for a day only in that even also, he shall be detained in civil prison and shall not be detained in the court room till rising of the court. As already stated no penalty, other than the penalty provided in order 39 Rule 2 A. can be imposed. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 A cannot be liberalised. A person found guilty of committing contempt of the courts order cannot go unpunished without an adequate sentence. The contemners, as is evident from the impugned order, tendered unconditional apology in writing and complied with the orders of the trial court therefore, it was the duty of the appellate court to examine as to whether the contemners were really showing contrition for their conduct ? Whether the penitence was apparent and real ? and whether the unconditional apology tendered by the contemners should be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case ?
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In not strictly construing the provisions of order 39 Rule 2 A, the learned appellate court committed error of jurisdiction and if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice.
16. Consequently, I allow the revisions and set aside the impugned order of the appellate court and remit the case to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh in view of the aforesaid directions. Till appeal is decided the order of the trial court shall remain stayed. Costs easy.