Summary
In a suit to rescind a joint development agreement, the defendants' counsel twice undertook in 2007 that the defendants would not alienate the suit property, and the Trial Court made the undertaking an order which was extended from time to time; sale deeds were nonetheless executed. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, but the High Court in appeal held the defendants guilty of disobedience and ordered civil imprisonment, attachment and compensation. The Supreme Court confirmed the finding of contempt, rejecting the plea that counsel lacked authority to give the undertaking since the clients never sought its discharge for over four years, but deleted the civil imprisonment on account of age, kept the attachment and enhanced the compensation to Rs 13 lakhs with interest.
Issues
- Whether the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was maintainable when the order disobeyed was made during the pendency of the suit, which was later dismissed.
- Whether the High Court was right in reversing the Trial Court and holding the defendants guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by their counsel and made an order of the court.
- Whether the defendants could escape liability on the plea that their counsel gave the undertaking without express authorisation.
- Whether the sentence of civil imprisonment, attachment and compensation called for modification.
Provisions considered
- Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rule 2A provides for attachment of property and detention in civil prison for disobedience of an injunction granted under Rules 1 and 2. Following Kanwar Singh Saini, an application under Rule 2A lies only for breach of an interim order operating during the suit's pendency; since the order here was made while the suit was pending, the application was saved from that bar. Following Samee Khan, disobedience is not erased merely because the injunction is later set aside or the suit dismissed. (¶¶ 2.4, 3, 7, 7.3, 7.4, 8)
Held
- There was no question as to the maintainability of the Rule 2A application: the order whose breach was alleged was made during the pendency of the original suit, so the bar against invoking Rule 2A after the suit is decreed did not apply and no error could be found in the exercise of jurisdiction. The subsequent dismissal of the suit did not absolve the defendants of the breach. (¶¶ 3, 7.3, 7.4, 8)
- The lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary and in the nature of agency; the lawyer must respect the client's right to decide and may not give concessions or undertakings to the court without the client's authority. It follows that an undertaking given to a court cannot be without requisite authority from the client. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10)
- The plea that counsel gave the undertaking not to alienate without authority was not accepted: the undertaking was given in July 2007, reiterated a month later, made an order of the court in November 2007 and extended from time to time, yet the clients took no step to have it discharged in the four and a half years before the Rule 2A application was filed. Alienation of the property despite express court orders fully justified the High Court's decision to punish the appellants for contempt. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts and protect the administration of justice; where there has been an express violation of a court order, its exercise cannot be faulted. The High Court's judgment was confirmed. (¶ 13)
- Sentence modified: having regard to the contemnor's age (about 68 years), the three months' confinement in civil prison was deleted; the attachment of the property for one year remained undisturbed; and the compensation payable by the appellants was enhanced from Rs 10 lakhs to Rs 13 lakhs, carrying simple interest at 6 per cent from 2 August 2013, the date of the Trial Court's order. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The finding of contempt and the attachment of the suit property for one year are confirmed; the sentence of three months' civil imprisonment is deleted; compensation enhanced to Rs 13 lakhs with 6 per cent simple interest from 2 August 2013. Pending applications disposed of.