Mens Rea (Intention) must for Civil Prison for Breach of Injunction Order [Rule-2A, Order-XXXIX:]—
U. C. Surendranath Vs. Mambally’s Bakery (22.07.2019): At the outset it is well known established principle that unlike Criminal Law, in Civil Law mens rea (ill-intention/ deliberate or wilful disobedience) has no role to play while determining one’s civil liability for deviation/ breach of any civil obligation under any particular civil law. Relying upon the same fundamental legal principle, Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of C.P.C., 1908 deals with the consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. Accordingly, in the case of disobedience or breach of injunction the court may pass following orders—
- attachment of property upto one year, and
- detention in civil prison for a term not exceeding 3 months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
Thus, Rule 2A nowhere says for intentional/ willful breach of the temporary injunction or interlocutory order. However, while resorting to the purposive interpretation and taking into consideration the capability/ dependency of the accused and the time-frame for compliance of the injunction order, the division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U. C. Surendranath Vs. Mambally’s Bakery (22.07.2019) has held that under Rule 2A, mere breach of temporary injunction/ interlocutory order is not sufficient to attract attachment of property of the guilty or civil prison to him. The Court further held that there must be intentional or willful disobedience/ breach of temporary injunction/ interlocutory order to empower the Court to proceed for passing an order of civil imprisonment under Rule 2A.
Sir
Very conceptually linked jurisprudential interpretation of the judgment in reference. Expect to share some more judgments with ratio rather than merely posting judgments with re-iterating legislative provisions.