IN TH 103 MGF Deve Pankaj Ba CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU violation o learned A miscellaneo dismissal o with Sectio has been al reads as fol COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No.3345 o Date of decision Development Ltd. Versus aj Bansal Director of M3M India Pv AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advo Mr. Gaurav Pathania, Advocat for the petitioner. Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Sr. Advoc Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advoc Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate Mr. Rubina Virmani, Advocat for the respondents. HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition tion of the order dated 05.4.2024 (An ed Additional District Judge, Guru ellaneous appeal filed by the petit issal of its application under Order 3 Section 151CPC by the trial court vi een allowed. The operative part of th as follows :- “ xxx xxx (ii) that they (defendants from raising any sort of c 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 3345 of 2025 (O & M) cision :-21.01.2026 …..Petitioner dia Pvt. Ltd. and others …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA . Advocate assisted by dvocate Advocate and Advocate assisted by cate and dvocate ition has been filed alleging 24 (Annexure P-1) passed by the , Gurugram whereby the civil petitioner/plaintiff against the rder 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read urt vide order dated 16.10.2023, t of the judgment dated 5.4.2024, xxx xxx nts No.1 to 7) are restrained of construction upon the suit VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioner respondent suit land. inclined to the petition 61 of the j Investment (2022)1 Su COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) property as detailed and des Para No.13 of the plaint…” It is the contention of the lear ioner that in flagrant violation of ndent/defendants no.1 to 7 are carryin and. After arguing for some time, ned to agree with the submissions of etitioner, learned Senior Counsel for t f the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme ment Holdings LLC. Vs. Future R 1 Supreme court Cases 209, wherein “61. It is one thing to say th court under Order 39 Rule 2 akin to the power to punish fo Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 say that Order 39 Rule disobedience" but “willful dis facie of the view that the lett word “willful” into Order correct and may require to Bench. Suffice it to say that between enforcement of orde Rules 1 and 2 and orders m Orders which are in conte primarily to punish the offend jail sentence or both. On the 2-A is primarily intended to e Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, and fo are given vast powers which i property, apart from passing which are punitive in natu Section 17(2) of the Arbitra contained in Order 39 Rule 2 referable only to the Arbitr aforesaid judgments are an au of law to the contrary.” 2 described in Schedule ‘A’ of e learned Senior Counsel for the n of the above injunction, the carrying out construction over the time, when this Court was not ns of learned Senior Counsel for el for the petitioner refers to para reme Court in Amazon.com NV ure Retail Limited and others herein it is held as follows: - y that the power exercised by a le 2-A is punitive in nature and ish for civil contempt under the 971. It is quite another thing to ule 2-A requires not "mere disobedience”. We are prima letter judgment in adding the er 39 Rule 2-A is not quite to be reviewed by a larger that there is a vast difference orders passed under Order 39 rs made in contempt of court. contempt of court are made ffender by imposing a fine or a the other hand, Order 39 Rule to enforce orders passed under nd for that purpose, civil courts ich include the power to attach ssing orders of imprisonment, nature. Orders passed under itration Act, using the power le 2-A are, therefore, properly rbitration Act. Neither of the n authority for any proposition VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document per the abo this Court b under Orde the dignity has been c respondent of the prese put forth categorical are primar sentence or intended to petitioner i whereby injuncted/re Question o the present been comm per law, is Especially the petition COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) Learned Senior Counsel for th he above judgment, it is open to the p ourt by way of present petition or to t r Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. It is submi ignity of the Court of the Additional been called into question by the con ndents. As such, the petitioner has ap e present Contempt Petition. Heard. This Court is not inclined to a forth by learned Senior Counsel orically held in para 61 “…that the or imarily to punish the offender by ce or both. On the other hand, Orde ed to enforce orders passed under O It is my considered view tha ioner is seeking the enforcement of eby the respondents/defendants cted/restrained from raising constru tion of punishing the alleged contemn resent one, would arise once it is det committed. Thus, the first and right re law, is to file an application under cially in view of the fact that in the etitioner is raising disputed question 3 l for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner to either approach or to take recourse to the remedy submitted that in the present case itional District Judge, Gurugram he contumacious conduct of the has approached this court by way ed to agree with the submissions unsel for the petitioner. It is e orders which are in contempt by imposing a fine or a jail Order 39 Rule 2-A is primarily er Order 39 Rules 1 and 2…”. ew that in the present case, the nt of the order dated 5.4.2024; dants no.1 to 7 were onstruction over the suit land. ntemners in a proceeding such as is determined that contempt has right remedy for the petitioner, as nder Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. in the present Contempt petition, estions of fact in respect of the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document alleged con order dated respondent property, ca only be asc Reliance m High Cou Khatrabha wherein it have filed modificatio before the COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) ed constructions raised by the respo r dated 5.4.2024. Such a determination ndents have indeed raised construc erty, cannot be made by this Court in t be ascertained in a proceeding under nce may be placed upon Division Be Court in Bhodarbhai Vicchiyabh abhai Damor, (Gujarat)(DB) : Law rein it has been held as follows: “A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1 of Civil Procedure, 1908 Orde of injunction order - Appli contempt proceedings under jurisdiction under "the Act" is and when a specific remedy XXXIX of "the Code" is avai proceedings, invocation o bypassing that remedy is not p B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1 invoking the contempt jurisd "the Act" should not be hype must be exercised judicio proceedings in which the injun pending, the proper remed proceedings and not through s C. Contempt of Courts Act, Procedure, 1908 - Contempt p of Order XXXIX - Remedies Held, Rule 2A of Order XX remedy for breach of injuncti proof of "willful" disobedien Contempt jurisdiction is to b not where alternative remedies It is also pertinent to note tha filed an application under Orde ification, of the order dated 5.4.2024, re the learned Trial Court since 4 respondents in violation of the ination of fact, as to whether the nstruction or not over the suit urt in the present petition; and can under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. ion Bench judgment of Gujarat iyabhai Pargi v. Panglabhai Law Finder Doc Id # 2559695 ct, 1971 Section 2(b) and Code Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Breach pplicant sought initiation of der "the Act" - Held, contempt ct" is an extraordinary remedy, edy under Rule 2A of Order available in the same pending of contempt jurisdiction ot permissible. ct, 1971 - Jurisdiction - Held, sdiction of the Court under ypersensitive or emotional but iciously - When the main injunction was granted are still emedy lies within the same gh separate contempt action. Act, 1971 and Code of Civil pt proceedings versus Rule 2A dies for breach of injunction - XXXIX provides an effective nction, which does not require edience as under "the Act" - to be exercised sparingly, and edies exist.” ote that the defendants no.1 to 7 Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for 2024, which is presently pending since 2.07.2025, immediately VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document whereafter 09.07.2025 undue has respondent petition is recourse to January 21 Vijay Asija COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) eafter petitioner filed the presen 7.2025. For this reason, as well, this e haste if contempt proceedings ndents. In view of the above noted pos ion is dismissed. Needless to say, liberty is gran rse to appropriate remedy under the la Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, ary 21, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes / N 5 present contempt petition on l, this Court will be acting with ings are initiated against the ted position, the present contempt is granted to the petitioner to take r the law, if so advised. if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE soned Yes / No es / No VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document