Alleged injunction breaches may be determined in the main suit when proof requires trial evidence.

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 2016, had obtained an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

He alleged that municipal and revenue officials entered the property on 10 October 2022 and demolished a compound wall in breach of the injunction.

His application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC to proceed against the first respondent was dismissed by the District Munsif.

The record included an Advocate Commissioner’s report stating that the area acquired by the respondents was in a different survey number from the suit property; the petitioner disputed the report.

The suit remained pending, with the defendants’ evidence at the stage of cross-examination.

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC required interference under Article 227, given the allegation that the interim injunction had been breached.

Whether the alleged demolition and its location within the suit property could be assessed in the course of the main suit, rather than through a separate evidentiary inquiry on the Rule 2-A application.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide for interim injunctions, while Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC concerns the consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court.

The judgment stated no precedent or detailed test governing Rule 2-A applications; it reasoned that disputed questions about the property’s extent and whether demolition occurred within the suit property could be determined on the evidence in the main suit.

The Court noted that the Commissioner’s report placed the acquired area in a different survey number, while the petitioner disputed the report.

It observed that the petitioner could examine the Commissioner on his objections and, if advised, seek to have the report scraped and a fresh Commissioner appointed.

Because the alleged demolition and its location could be established through evidence in the suit, the Court considered that the issue could be assessed when deciding the main suit, rather than through a separate trial on the Rule 2-A application.

The Court also emphasized the suit’s age and the need for its timely disposal.

It directed the District Munsif, Tiruttani, to take the Court’s observations into account and dispose of O.S. No. 60 of 2016 within six months of receiving a copy of the order.