Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol have held that subsequent setting aside of an injunction does not absolve liability for its disobedience during its pendency. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Smt Lavanya C & Anr v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased by Lrs. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt Lavanya C & Anr v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased by Lrs. & Ors. Case? 

• The appellants (Smt. Lavanya C. and Chalsani R.B.) were the original defendants in a suit where the respondents sought a declaration to revoke a Joint Development Agreement dated 30th April 2004. 
• During the pendency of the proceedings, the counsel for the appellants gave undertakings on 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007 that they would not alienate the subject property to any third person. 
• The Trial Court incorporated this undertaking into a formal order on 17th November 2007, which was subsequently extended multiple times. 
• Despite the undertaking and court order, the appellants executed several sale deeds between 19th November 2007 and 13th December 2011, alienating portions of the subject property. 
• In 2011, the respondents filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (CPC) alleging breach of the undertaking/injunction order. 
• The Trial Court dismissed this application on 2nd August 2013, finding that the description of the property was ambiguous and that there was insufficient evidence to establish willful disobedience. 
• Subsequently, the Trial Court also dismissed the original suit on 2nd January 2017, concluding that the plaintiffs could not prove violations of the Joint Development Agreement. 
• The respondents appealed the dismissal of their application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC to the High Court, which reversed the Trial Court's decision. 
• The offence alleged against the appellants was willful disobedience of their undertaking and the court's injunction order prohibiting alienation of the suit property.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Trial Court Observations: 
  • The Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants had violated the Joint Development Agreement. 
  • The Trial Court noted that the photos of the suit property showed it was still vacant with only the foundation laid, contradicting the plaintiffs' contention that flats were sold. 
  • The Trial Court found that the description of the suit property was "incomplete and ambiguous," making the plaintiffs' averments not believable. 
  • The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents knowingly and willfully disobeyed the injunction order. 
  • The Trial Court determined there was insufficient material on record to establish that the respondents had knowingly and willfully committed a breach of the court's order. 
  • The Trial Court held that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the alleged violation of the undertaking. 
• High Court Observations: 
  • The High Court observed that even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience thereof is not erased, citing Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan. 
  • The High Court noted that the subsequent dismissal of a suit does not absolve the party of liability for breach of an injunction order. 
  • The High Court highlighted that several sale deeds were executed after the Court's order of 17th November 2007, explicitly violating the undertaking. 
  • The High Court found no merit in the contention that the injunction order was invalid. 
  • The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of disobedience of their undertaking made before the Trial Court. 
  • The High Court determined that this disobedience warranted detention in civil prison, attachment of property, and compensation to the respondents. 
• Supreme Court Observations: 
  • The Supreme Court observed that the relationship between an advocate and client is fiduciary in nature, with the lawyer acting as an agent of the client. 
  • The Supreme Court noted that any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client. 
  • The Supreme Court found it difficult to accept that the undertaking was given without authority, especially since no steps were taken to discharge that order for four and a half years. 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the powers of contempt are provided to ensure that the dignity and majesty of law are maintained. 
  • The Supreme Court observed that when there has been an express violation of a Court order, as in this case, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted. 
  • The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's judgment but modified the penalty, deleting the three-month imprisonment due to the appellant's advanced age. 
  • The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs with interest at 6% from the date of the lower court's judgment. 
  • The Supreme Court reiterated that disobedience of an injunction order is not erased even if the order is subsequently set aside, or the suit is dismissed. 
  • The Supreme Court upheld that alienation of property despite express orders of the Court justified the contempt proceedings against the appellants. 

What is Order XXXIX Rule 2A? 

• Order XXXIX Rule 2A states the consequences of disobeying or breaching an injunction. 
• If a person disobeys an injunction granted under Rule 1 or 2, or breaches any terms of the injunction:  
  • The court may order attachment of the person's property. 
  • The court may order detention of the person in civil prison for up to three months. 
• Property attachment under this rule:  
  • Cannot remain in force for more than one year. 
  • If disobedience continues after one year, the attached property may be sold. 
  • From the proceeds of sale, the court may award compensation to the injured party. 
  • Any remaining balance goes to the party entitled to it. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998): 
  • The Supreme Court established that disobedience of an injunction order remains punishable even if the order is subsequently set aside. 
  • "Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased" - this principle upholds court authority regardless of the final outcome of litigation. 
  • While the severity of punishment may be reduced if an injunction is later set aside, the contemptuous act itself cannot be retroactively legitimized. 
  • The case created a clear obligation for litigants to obey court orders while they are in force, rather than gambling on the possibility of eventual reversal.