Temporary injunction breach must be enforced under civil procedure, not general contempt jurisdiction, and non-parties cannot be treated as contemners.

Disobedience of a temporary injunction granted by a subordinate court is to be addressed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because that provision gives the court that issued the injunction the direct mechanism to examine breach and impose consequences. The general contempt jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not the proper route where the Code provides a specific enforcement remedy. A person who was not a party to the suit and is alleged only to have aided or abetted the breach cannot be proceeded against as a contemner on that basis outside the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was maintainable in the High Court for alleged disobedience of a temporary injunction granted by a subordinate court when Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provided a specific remedy. (ii) Whether a person not party to the suit, alleged only to have aided and abetted breach of the injunction, could be proceeded against under the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was maintainable in the High Court for alleged disobedience of a temporary injunction granted by a subordinate court when Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provided a specific remedy.

Analysis: Disobedience of a temporary injunction is treated as civil contempt and is specifically dealt with by Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court which grants the injunction is the proper forum to examine breach, assess evidence, and impose the consequences provided by that rule. Where the Code furnishes a direct and effective mechanism for enforcement of an injunction, the general contempt jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not the appropriate route.

Conclusion: The High Court should not invoke contempt jurisdiction for alleged breach of the subordinate court's injunction; the remedy lies before the court that granted the injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A.

Issue (ii): Whether a person not party to the suit, alleged only to have aided and abetted breach of the injunction, could be proceeded against under the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court.

Analysis: The reasoning of the judgment is that the statutory scheme of Order 39 Rule 2A is directed to the person bound by the injunction and does not justify treating an alleged aider or abettor as committing criminal contempt merely because he allegedly assisted the principal actor. Breach of an injunction remains a civil matter governed by the Code, and a non-party cannot be converted into a contemner under the general contempt jurisdiction on that basis. The court also emphasised that without a finding of breach against the party bound by the injunction, liability of an alleged aider cannot independently arise.

Conclusion: The alleged aider and abettor could not be proceeded against in the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on these facts.

Final Conclusion: The application was held misconceived and the proper course was to seek enforcement of the injunction before the subordinate judge under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of a temporary injunction granted by a subordinate court is a civil contempt remediable under the specific procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the High Court should not use general contempt jurisdiction to punish the alleged breach or to proceed against an alleged aider and abettor outside that scheme.

---