Landmark judgment on Enforcement of interim or final orders/decree of court including undertakings given to court

Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307
Civil Suit
Enforcement of interim or final orders/decree of court including undertakings given to court
Role of execution vis--vis contempt proceedings - Proper and advisable first mode for enforcement of orders, held, is to
file an application under Or. 39 R. 2-A CPC for enforcement of interim orders/undertaking to court when suit is pending,
or to file application for execution in case suit has been decreed based on undertaking or otherwise - When matter
relates to infringement of a decree or decretal order embodying rights as between parties, contempt jurisdiction cannot
be invoked merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in nature - Violation of permanent
injunction or wilful breach of any undertaking given to court on basis of which suit itself was disposed of, can be set right
in execution proceedings by attachment of defaulter's property or by detention in civil prison, and not by contempt
proceedings - Contempt jurisdiction is attracted when disobedience of court order or undertaking to court is wilful and
contumacious, (2012) 4 SCC 307-A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 39 Rr. 2-A and 1 & 2 and Or. 21 R. 32, Or. 21 and S. 47 - Application under Or. 39 R. 2-A - Maintainability of - Held,
said application is maintainable only during pendency of suit where interim order passed by court or undertaking given by
a party is violated
- In instant case, no interim order was ever passed and undertaking given by appellant-defendant not
to dispossess plaintiff from suit premises had culminated into final decree - If any further action was required it could be
taken only in execution proceedings under Or. 21 R. 32 - High Court erred in entertaining application under Or. 39 R. 2-A
against appellant, (2012) 4 SCC 307-B

Interim order - Held, interim order always merges in final order after decree is passed and where case is dismissed,
interim order stands automatically nullified, (2012) 4 SCC 307-C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 21 R. 32 - Injunctions enforceable under - Held, Or. 21 R. 32 applies to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions -
Execution of an injunction decree is to be made in terms of said provision since CPC provides particular manner and
mode of execution - No other mode, hence, permissible, (2012) 4 SCC 307-D

Orders/Decrees passed by court having no jurisdiction - Effect - Acquiescence - Relevance - Held, conferment of
jurisdiction is a legislative function and can neither be conferred with consent of parties nor by superior court -
Order/decree passed by court having no jurisdiction over the matter is a nullity as it goes to root of the cause -
Acquiescence of a party cannot also be permitted to defeat legislative animation - Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart
from statute, 
Statutory Scheme involving Adjudicatory Process
Enforcement of rights and obligations under statute - Held, when a statute gives rights and provides forum for
adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act in the specified manner - Thus, for
enforcement of a right/obligation under a statute, the only remedy available is to get adjudication of rights under the said

S. 47 and Or. 21 R. 32 - Powers of executing court - Scope - Held, executing court cannot go behind decree - In
absence of any challenge to decree, no objection can be raised in execution, 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 21 R. 32 and Or. 39 R. 2-A - Disobedience of decree passed on basis of admission/undertaking given to court -
Appropriate remedy - Held, is to file an application for execution under Or. 21 R. 32 and not under Or. 39 R. 2-A -
Procedure in execution of an injunction decree is same as prescribed under Or. 39 R. 2-A i.e. attachment of property and
detention in civil prison, 
Contempt of Court

Ss. 2(b) and (c) - Civil or criminal contempt - Determination of - Violation/breach of undertaking given to court on basis
of which decree was passed - Held, constitutes civil contempt since it is for sole benefit of other party to the suit and
court must satisfy itself that such violation was wilful and intentional - In such situation administration of justice could be
undermined if order of competent court is permitted to be disregarded with impunity, but it does not involve sufficient
public interest for it to be treated as criminal contempt - Where contemnor satisfies court that disobedience was under
compelling circumstances, no punishment can be awarded - For violation of a judgment or decree provisions of criminal
contempt are not attracted, 
Contempt of Court
Criminal Contempt
Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings up to punishment therefor - If properly conducted/contempt power properly
exercised - False affidavit (taking inconsistent pleas in reply filed to application under Or. 39 R. 2-A CPC) - High Court
convicting appellant for criminal contempt and sending him to jail but not granting any relief so far as enforcement of
decree was concerned - Propriety - Held, purposes of initiation of contempt proceedings are twofold: to ensure
compliance with order passed by court; and to punish contemnor as he has the audacity to challenge majesty of law -
High Court erred in not taking any steps for enforcing decree and sending appellant to jail, which was a glaring example
of non-application of mind and non-observance of procedure prescribed by law,
Generally
Contempt proceedings - Nature of - Standard of proof - Benefit of doubt - Held, contempt proceedings being quasi-
criminal in nature, standard of proof required is the same as in other criminal cases - Alleged contemnor is entitled to
protection of all safeguards/rights provided in criminal jurisprudence, including benefit of doubt - There must be clear-cut
case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of contempt -
Case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures, 
Maxims
Sublato fundamento cadit opus
Applicability - On facts held, since application under Or. 39 R. 2-A CPC itself was not maintainable all subsequent
proceedings remained inconsequential - Thus, foundation being removed, entire structure collapsed, 
Or. 10 R. 1, Or. 14 R. 1(5) and Or. 15 R. 1 - First hearing of the suit - When contemplated - Held, it comes after framing
of issues whereafter suit is posted for trial - Said hearing can never be earlier than date fixed for preliminary examination
of parties and settlement of issues - Hearing presupposes existence of an occasion which enables parties to be heard in
respect of the cause - First day of hearing does not mean day for return of summons or the returnable date, but day on
which court applies its mind to the case, 
S. 47, Or. 21 and Or. 21 R. 32 - Execution - Nature of disobedience/non-compliance by judgment debtor - Relevance of
- Held, in execution proceedings, court may not be bothered with whether disobedience is wilful or not and court is bound
to execute decree irrespective of consequences, 

Print Page