Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2(3), O.XLIII, R.1(2)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2(3) & O.XLIII, R.1(2)---Temporary injunction, grant of---Violation---Application by plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction pending their suit was disposed of restraining the defendant from alienating suit property .but allowing him to complete his construction by erecting lintel at his own cost and risk---Plaintiffs aggrieved of the order of Trial Court; filed appeal before Appellate Court which on the same day, suspended the operation of order passed by Trial Court---Pending appeal, plaintiffs filed application under O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C. for initiation of proceedings of disobedience of order passed by Trial Court against the defendant on the ground that he being aware of suspension order passed by Appellate Court intentionally completed his construction work and thus had violated order exposing himself to penal action---Defendant denied the allegation of plaintiffs---Validity--Appellate Court by its order having suspended order passed by Trial Court, no prohibitory order was in the field--�Appellate Court having not restrained defendant from raising any construction over the suit property, no question of proceedings against the defendant under provisions of O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C, would arise---Plaintiff could not say that by suspension of order of Trial Court by the Appellate Court .interim order restraining defendant from raising construction had revived---In absence of any binding order, proceedings under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C. against defendant were not warranted ---Statu quo order would become operative, the moment it was passed whereas other injunctive orders would become effective from the time said orders were served on the parties to whom those were directed---Suspension order would take effect from the date , of its service of person to whom it was directed---Besides there was no binding injunctive order restraining the defendant from carrying on with construction work since suspension order passed by the Appellate Court was served on plaintiff three days after its passing whereas lintel by defendant was completed by the defendant before one day of service of said suspension…