7 March 2025 Legal Updates

1. O 39 R 2A CPC | Even If Injunction Order Was Subsequently Set Aside, Party Remains Liable For Its Prior Violation: Supreme Court

• Case- SMT Lavanya C & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pal Since Deceased By LRS. & Ors.
• Date of Order- March 5, 2025
• Bench- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol

Case Background:

• The case involves an appeal made by the appellants, who violated an injunction order given by the trial court, despite providing an undertaking not to alienate the suit property.
• The injunction order was extended multiple times, from 2007 to 2011, but the appellants sold parts of the property during this period, violating the injunction.

Legal Proceedings:

• The respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking action against the appellants for violating the injunction order.
• The Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that the respondents failed to prove wilful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The trial court also dismissed the original suit, citing ambiguity in the property description and providing the appellants the benefit of the doubt.

High Court Ruling:

• The High Court reversed the trial court's decision and held that the appellants had willfully violated the court's order.
• The High Court imposed penalties, including imprisonment and attachment of property.

Supreme Court Appeal:

• Aggrieved by the High Court's penalties, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
• The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the appellants' sentence of imprisonment and compensation.
• The Court also examined the scope of Order 39 Rule 1, 2, and 2A and the effect of dismissing a suit on previously violated injunction orders.

Supreme Court Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants willfully disobeyed the injunction order.
• It emphasized that the disobedience of the injunction order was not erased just because the original suit was dismissed, citing the case of Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59.
• The Court partly allowed the appeal, removing the three-month imprisonment but increasing the compensation from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 13 lakh, along with interest of 6% from the date of the lower court's judgment (2nd August 2013).

2. Direct Courts Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Hold Presiding Officer Liable On Failure: Supreme Court

• Case- Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) And Ors. vs. Rajamani And Anr.
• Date of Order- March 6, 2025
• Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Supreme Court's Direction:

• On March 6, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to gather information on all pending execution petitions in the district judiciary.
• The Court observed that executing courts were taking three to four years to pass appropriate orders, which was frustrating the decrees in favor of the decree-holders.

Order to High Courts:

• The High Courts were directed to issue an administrative circular to trial courts, mandating that pending execution petitions be decided within six months.
• If the execution petitions were not decided within this period, the Presiding Officer would be answerable to the High Court on the administrative side.

Specific Directions:

• The Court directed that High Courts collect data on the pendency and disposal of execution petitions from their district judiciary.
• Once the data was collected, it should be forwarded to the Supreme Court's Registry along with individual reports.

Previous Supreme Court Rulings:

• The Court referred to previous directions in the cases of Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) and Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors. (2022), where the Court had mandated that execution proceedings be completed within six months of filing. However, these directions had not been followed, leading to delays.

Case Involved:

• The Court dealt with the case of Ayyavoo Udayar, who filed a civil suit for specific performance in 1986 regarding an agreement to sell.
• Despite various legal proceedings and the death of the petitioner, the suit was ultimately decreed.
• In 2004, the decree-holder sought to have the sale deed executed and possession delivered, but the petition was dismissed. This was challenged and allowed in 2006, but the execution petition faced delays.

Supreme Court's Order in the Case:

• The Court set aside the impugned judgment by the High Court and the order passed by the executing court.
• The executing court was directed to ensure the decree-holder (petitioners) was put in possession of the property, with the aid of the police if necessary.
• The possession of the property was to be handed over within two months from the date of the judgment.

Judgment's Conclusion:

• Justice Pardiwala highlighted the long delays in deciding execution petitions by executing courts across the country, causing frustration for decree-holders.
• The Court emphasized the need for timely execution of orders to prevent delays from undermining the effectiveness of court decrees.

3. When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under Section 406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

Supreme Court's Observation on Trial Transfer:

• The Supreme Court observed that mere inconvenience faced by an accused in attending a trial cannot be a sufficient ground for transferring proceedings under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The Court emphasized that an order for the transfer of a trial should not be passed routinely, especially when the plea is based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).

Judgment on Transfer Petitions:

• A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan pronounced the judgment in a batch of transfer petitions, where the request was to transfer the trial from Coimbatore to Chandigarh for a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (relating to dishonor of cheques).

Court's Findings:

• The Court held that this case was not a fit one for the transfer of the trial under Section 406 CrPC (Section 446 of BNSS) as it was not expedient for justice.
• The Court cautioned that the power to transfer a trial under Section 406 should be used cautiously and only in exceptional situations where necessary to ensure the credibility of the trial.

Five Broad Instances for Trial Transfer:

• The Court outlined five broad instances where the transfer of a trial could be considered:

1. State machinery or prosecution colluding with the accused, likely leading to a miscarriage of justice due to negligence by the prosecution.
2. Material evidence showing that the accused may influence prosecution witnesses or harm the complainant.
3. Comparative inconvenience and hardships to the accused, complainant, prosecution, witnesses, and the burden on the State for travel expenses.
4. Communally surcharged atmosphere that could prevent a fair and impartial trial due to the nature of the crime or accusations made.
5. Interference with the course of justice due to hostility, either directly or indirectly, by certain persons involved.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the circumstances presented in the case did not meet any of these exceptional criteria to warrant the transfer of the trial from Coimbatore to Chandigarh.