Interim injunctions remain enforceable until jurisdiction is decided; later lack of jurisdiction does not excuse prior wilful disobedience.

An interim injunction granted by a civil court remains binding and enforceable until a jurisdictional objection is finally decided, even if the suit is later held not maintainable. A subsequent finding of want of jurisdiction does not retrospectively excuse prior wilful disobedience, so punishment under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC can still follow. On the facts, repeated findings showed continued construction in breach of the injunction and attempts to obstruct inspection, and the finding of wilful breach against the second defendant was upheld. The High Court was therefore wrong to set aside the contempt order solely on the basis of later lack of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disobedience of an interim injunction issued by a civil court can be punished under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the court is later held to have had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (ii) Whether the finding of wilful breach of the injunction against the second defendant warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether disobedience of an interim injunction issued by a civil court can be punished under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the court is later held to have had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis: Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure recognises that when an objection to jurisdiction is taken in a suit in which interim relief is sought, the court must decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, but it does not lose power to grant interim relief pending that determination. An interim order passed during that period is an operative order of a court having seisin of the matter until the jurisdictional issue is finally decided. A later finding that the suit could not be entertained does not retrospectively authorise parties to treat prior subsisting orders as non-existent. To hold otherwise would permit parties to decide for themselves whether to obey court orders, which would undermine the administration of justice.

Conclusion: The later finding of want of jurisdiction did not bar punishment for prior wilful breach of the interim injunction, and the High Court was in setting aside the contempt order on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of wilful breach of the injunction against the second defendant warranted interference.

Analysis: The record contained repeated factual findings by the civil court and the High Court that construction continued in breach of the injunction, that attempts were made to obstruct inspection, and that the second defendant acted on behalf of the first defendant. The challenge raised before the Supreme Court did not justify a remand on facts, especially where the breach had already been established on consistent materials and the impugned judgment had proceeded only on the legal issue of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The finding of wilful breach against the second defendant was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the High Court's view on the effect of subsequent lack of jurisdiction was set aside, while the contempt order against the second defendant was affirmed and the matter was remitted only in relation to the remaining respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim order passed by a civil court that is seized of a suit remains binding and enforceable until the jurisdictional objection is finally determined, and a later declaration that the suit was not maintainable does not immunise prior wilful disobedience from proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---