S.C. Sen ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
1. A question of some general importance arises in these appeals. The question is whether a person who disobeys an interim injunction made by the Civil Court can be punished under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the CPC where it is ultimately found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has opined, following certain earlier decisions of that Court, that he cannot be. The reason given is : once it is found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, all interim orders made therein must also be deemed to be without jurisdiction and, hence, a person flouting such interim orders cannot be punished for their violation. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff- appellant.
2. The first defendant, Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited, is the tenant of the ground floor in the suit house. The appellant is the landlord. On August 25, 1985 the said building was destroyed by fire.
3. On February 11,1991 the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay (Suit No. 1407 of 1991) for a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any construction in the suit premises. The appellant's case was that inasmuch as the building, which was the subject-matter of tenancy between the parties, has been destroyed by fire, the tenancy of the first defendant has come to an end. (The second respondent herein is the Managing Director of the first respondent and was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.) The appellant applied for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any construction. An ad-interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court on February 15, 1991. The first defendant applied for vacating the interim injunction but his application was dismissed by the Civil Court in February/March, 1991. An appeal preferred by the first defendant was dismissed on July 24, 1991.
4. Meanwhile, on April 11, 1991 the plaintiff moved the Civil Court for punishing the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code for flouting the order of interim injunction. While the said application was pending, the defendants moved an application under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code (Maharashtra Amendment) for determining the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the said suit. On November 29, 1991 the Civil Court affirmed the temporary injunction and also held that it did posses the jurisdiction to try the said suit.
5. On December 2, 1991, the Civil Court allowed the application/motion filed by the appellant-landlord against Defendants 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code. It would be appropriate to notice the findings recorded in the said order. The court found, on a consideration of the material placed before it, "that the construction is, to say the least massive. Some of the photographs show construction materials being certain iron girders, columns and beams being brought to the suit premises. The columns which are erected are shown to be dug from the ground itself right upto the first floor level.... These photographs also show massive reconstruction work in progress right from the ground floor. There can be absolutely no doubt that the suit premises as they were on the date of the injunction order and on the date of the Architect's visit to the suit premises have been altered beyon........