Vitthal Shriram Kharbadkar vs Pandurang Irbhanji Kadu
2001 Latest Caselaw 948 Bom

JUDGMENT

P.S. Brahme, J.

1. The application is disposed of at the admission stage, with consent of the counsel for the parties appearing before me. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 129/2000 challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Murtizapur in Reg. Civil Suit No. 52/1996 below the application Exh. 46, under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the applicant has committed breach of injunction. The Trial Court has rejected the application. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed the order of detaining the applicant in custody for 15 days for having committed breach of the injunction order.

3. It is contended by Shri. Kaptan, the Learned Counsel for the applicant, that the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the order passed by the Trial Court on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging breach or disobedience of the order of injunction. It is submitted and pointed out by Shri. Kaptan that in view of the Bombay High Court Amendment to Rule 1R, Sub-rule (R), the order under Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure is excluded. Thereby no appeal is tenable against the order passed under Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. This legal position is accepted by the counsel for the respondents. In view of this legal position, the revision application is to be allowed.

4. The order passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 129/2000 on 30-8-2001 is set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

No order as to costs.