Civil-court injunction breaches must be pursued under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, not contempt.

The complainant alleged that the accused wilfully disobeyed the Karnataka High Court’s interim order dated 5 February 2026 and final order dated 5 March 2026 in W.P. No. 2950/2026, and sought punishment for contempt.

The accused had brought that writ petition, concerning police protection and an injunction in a pending civil suit, and claimed through the defendants in O.S. No. 1407/2022.

The accused argued that the civil court’s injunction restrained only the defendants from constructing on the suit property, and that they were not defendants in that suit.

The complainant maintained that the orders applied to the accused because they claimed through the defendants.

The Court applied Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the prescribed process under that provision is the appropriate route for alleged disobedience of a temporary injunction granted by a civil court.

The petition invoked Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but the Court did not determine whether the accused had committed contempt.

The alleged conduct concerned implementation of the civil court’s temporary injunction, whose operative terms restrained the defendants in the suit from constructing on the scheduled property.

Although the complainant contended that the accused were bound by the injunction because they claimed through those defendants, the Court considered that alleged disobedience of the civil court’s injunction should be addressed through the procedure specifically provided by Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, rather than through this contempt petition.

It therefore did not decide whether the accused’s conduct amounted to wilful disobedience.

It made no finding on the merits of the allegation of contempt.