Himachal Pradesh High Court Clarifies Injunction Breach Proceedings Against Non-Parties
Court affirms non-parties may be implicated in breach of injunction if they aid or abet with knowledge of the court's order.
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, has delivered a judgment regarding the scope and application of Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This decision came in response to a petition filed by Santosh Kumar, who sought to quash proceedings initiated against him under the said provision, in the case titled Pushpa Devi v. Ram Pyari & Others.
The core issue addressed by the court was whether a person not originally party to a suit can be proceeded against for aiding or abetting the breach of an injunction order. The court held that the term "person" in Order 39, Rule 2A is broad enough to encompass individuals who, despite not being parties to the suit, assist or instigate the breach of an injunction, provided they have knowledge of the injunction.
In his oral judgment dated September 22, 2025, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel emphasized the importance of determining whether the accused had knowledge of the injunction order and whether they contributed to its breach. The court referenced several precedents, including decisions from the Madras and Orissa High Courts, to establish that a non-party can be implicated if they aid or abet the violation, illustrating the judiciary's stance on maintaining the sanctity of court orders.
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, argued that he was merely present at the scene to maintain law and order following a complaint and had no knowledge of the injunction order. However, the respondents contended that Kumar had instigated the breach, justifying the proceedings against him.
Justice Goel clarified that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A should consider the accused's knowledge and involvement in the breach. He stated that while non-parties can be prosecuted, they have the opportunity to prove their innocence by demonstrating lack of knowledge, non-disobedience, or absence of any act that could be interpreted as disobedience.
The court dismissed Santosh Kumar's petition, affirming the legality of the process issued against him by the trial court. Kumar was advised to present his defense in the ongoing proceedings, which would evaluate his knowledge and role in the alleged breach.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding court orders and ensuring that all individuals, whether parties to a suit or not, respect the authority of injunctions. It sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing that anyone aiding or abetting a breach of court orders with knowledge can be held accountable.
Bottom Line:
Injunction - Scope of Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC - A person who is not a party to the suit but aids or abets the breach of an injunction order, with knowledge of the injunction, can be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2A .
Statutory provision(s): Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Santosh Kumar v. Pushpa Devi, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782322
