Order XXXIX Rule 2A permits only property attachment or civil imprisonment, not apology as punishment.

The respondent instituted O.S. No.171/2014 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from publishing defamatory statements or materials concerning him.

The Trial Court granted a temporary prohibitory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on 10 April 2015, which was affirmed in appeal.

Despite the injunction, the petitioners allegedly published a defamatory article in the Karavali Ale newspaper dated 18 April 2015.

The respondent therefore initiated Misc. Case No.12/2015 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

The Trial Court found disobedience but directed the petitioners to publish an unconditional apology within 30 days, with 15 days’ civil imprisonment in default.

The petitioners published an apology on 22 October 2021.

The respondent challenged the nature of the punishment in M.A. No.22/2021.

The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to undergo civil imprisonment for three months.

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether a court exercising jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC can impose a punishment other than attachment of property or detention in civil prison for disobedience of a temporary injunction.

Whether the petitioners’ publication of an apology and deposit of ₹2,00,000 could substitute or otherwise discharge the punishment imposed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC provides the statutory consequences for disobedience or breach of an injunction: attachment of the guilty person’s property and detention in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months; where the breach continues, the attached property may subsequently be sold and compensation may be awarded from the proceeds.

Applying the principle nulla poena sine lege—no punishment without law—the Court held that where a statute prescribes penalties and the manner of imposing them, the court cannot invent or impose an additional form of punishment.

It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781, for the rule that no penalty not contemplated by the statute may be imposed.

It also considered Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59, which recognises that attachment and civil imprisonment may be imposed together or independently depending on the facts.

The Court referred to Deepak Gupta v. Santosh Kumar Jain, 1977 SCC OnLine Raj 444, for the proposition that punishment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A must remain within the statutory forms and cannot be replaced by detention in a courtroom or another non-statutory penalty.

The petitioners did not challenge the Trial Court’s finding that they had violated the temporary injunction; that finding had therefore attained finality.

The only question was the legality of the punishment.

The Court held that Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC exhaustively identifies the permissible consequences of disobedience—attachment of property and detention in civil prison.

Accordingly, the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing publication of an unconditional apology as an independent punishment, even though the petitioners subsequently complied with that direction.

The Appellate Court was therefore justified in substituting the non-statutory direction with detention in civil prison for three months.

The petitioners’ deposit of ₹2,00,000 could not operate as compensation or redeem them from the statutory punishment, since Order XXXIX Rule 2A contains no independent power to award such compensation in the circumstances.

The amount was consequently permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioners.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Appellate Court’s direction requiring the petitioners to undergo three months’ civil imprisonment was upheld.

The petitioners were permitted to withdraw the ₹2,00,000 deposited before the High Court.