Directing Apology as Punishment for Injunction Breach Exceeds Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Karnataka High Court Rules

Karnataka High Court holds that a trial court cannot substitute apology for civil imprisonment when punishing breach of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a writ petition filed by the editor and directors of Karavali Ale, a Mangaluru-based newspaper, who sought to set aside an appellate court's direction sending them to civil prison for three months for breaching a temporary injunction. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, sitting singly, held that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits only two forms of punishment — attachment of property and detention in civil prison — and that a trial court directing the contemnors to publish an unconditional apology instead acted outside the statute's framework. The ruling settles, at least at the single-judge level, that courts cannot invent penal alternatives under Order XXXIX Rule 2A beyond what the provision expressly contemplates.

The Dispute Before the Court

The respondent, M.P. Noronha, an advocate and notary practising at Mangaluru, filed O.S. No.171/2014 before a trial court seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners from publishing defamatory statements, photos, pictures, or articles about him. The petitioners are Sri Sathish N. Vaidya, editor of Karavali Ale; Smt. Rohini Seetharam, Managing Director of Chitra Publication Private Ltd; Sri B.V. Seetharam, director; and Aradhana Printers, a proprietory firm of Smt. Rohini Seetharam, all based at Baikampady Industrial Area, Mangaluru.

On 10 April 2015, the trial court granted a temporary prohibitory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC restraining the petitioners and other defendants from publishing such defamatory material. The petitioners challenged that interim order in M.A. No.5/2015, which was dismissed, confirming the injunction.

Despite the injunction, the petitioners published an article alleged to have tarnished the reputation of Noronha in their Karavali Ale newspaper on 18 April 2015 — barely eight days after the injunction was granted. Noronha filed Misc. Case No.12/2015 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC on 29 April 2015 seeking punishment for the breach.

The Trial Court's Order and the Appeal

The trial court considered the application and, by order dated 24 September 2021, found the petitioners guilty of disobeying the temporary injunction. That finding was not challenged by the petitioners and attained finality. For the punishment, however, the trial court took a path not prescribed by the statute: it directed the petitioners to tender an unconditional apology within 30 days through their Karavali Ale newspaper, with a default penalty of civil imprisonment for 15 days.

The petitioners complied. They published an apology in Karavali Ale on 22 October 2021.

Noronha was not satisfied. He appealed against the punishment order in M.A. No.22/2021 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, arguing that the trial court had exceeded the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 2A by directing an apology instead of imposing the penalties the provision actually prescribes. The appellate court agreed. By the impugned order dated 3 November 2022, the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to be detained in civil prison for three months.

The petitioners then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filing W.P. No.23294/2022 (GM-CPC) to quash the appellate court's order.

The Legal Question

Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil framed the issue precisely: “Whether the Trial Court can impose penalty other than the penalty provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC?”

The petitioners' counsel, Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, argued that the appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's order once the apology had already been tendered and complied with. He submitted that the petitioners had not published any defamatory content after the apology, and that the Rs.2,00,000 deposited before the High Court pursuant to an interim direction could serve as compensation in lieu of imprisonment. Counsel also offered that the petitioners were ready to tender a fresh apology if the court so directed.

Sri I. Tharanath Poojary, Senior Counsel for Noronha, supported the appellate court's order. He argued that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is explicit: disobedience of an injunction must be punished either by attachment of property or by detention in civil prison, and there is no room for any other form of penalty. He drew a distinction between Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, where acceptance of an apology is specifically provided for by statute. No such provision exists in Order XXXIX Rule 2A. He further contended that the apology tendered by the petitioners was not unconditional and did not express genuine remorse, though that contention was advanced only to show that the publication of the apology did not render the respondent's appeal infructuous.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Patil answered the framed question in the negative. The court's reasoning rested on a close reading of Order XXXIX Rule 2A together with the Supreme Court's exposition of the principle that when a statute prescribes a penalty for an act or omission, no other penalty may be imposed.

The court reproduced Order XXXIX Rule 2A in full. Sub-rule (1) provides that in the case of disobedience of an injunction or breach of its terms, the court may order attachment of property and may also order detention in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months. Sub-rule (2) deals with the sale of attached property after one year if the disobedience continues. On the face of the text, the provision gives the court a choice between two prescribed penalties, or both together — but nothing else.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 781, which held that when a statute or statutory rules prescribe a penalty for an act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the statute can be imposed, and when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59, which was cited by the respondent and which held that both steps — attachment and civil imprisonment — can be resorted to, or one of them alone, depending on the facts of each case. That formulation itself, the court reasoned, confirms the universe of choices is limited to those two options.

The Rajasthan High Court's decision in Deepak Gupta v. Santosh Kumar Jain and Others, 1977 SCC Online Raj 444, was also extracted. That court had held that no penalty other than what Order XXXIX Rule 2A provides can be imposed, and that even if a contemnor has tendered an unconditional apology in writing and complied with the original order, the appellate court must still examine whether the penitence was real and whether the apology ought to be accepted in the circumstances.

Two Allahabad High Court decisions were noted. In Niranjan Shukla and Another v. Shanker Shukla, AIR 1972 All 556, the court held that where there is a single completed breach, punishment by detention in civil prison is not inappropriate. In Smt. Savitri Devi v. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Gorakhpur and Others, AIR 2003 All 321, the court held that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A are quasi-criminal in nature, aimed at maintaining the dignity of the court and deterring disobedience of interim injunctions.

The court invoked the maxim nulla poena sine lege — no punishment without law — holding that courts are duty-bound to award punishment within the framework of law and cannot invent new penalties.

Applying these principles, Justice Patil held that the trial court's direction to publish an apology was a deviation from the only two permissible forms of punishment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and was therefore not in consonance with law. The appellate court, by setting aside the apology direction and ordering three months' civil imprisonment, had correctly appreciated the scope of the provision.

On the Deposit of Rs.2,00,000

The petitioners argued that the Rs.2,00,000 deposited before the High Court as a condition of the interim relief granted during the writ proceedings should be treated as compensation and released to the respondent, thereby redeeming them from imprisonment.

The court declined. Justice Patil held that Order XXXIX Rule 2A makes no provision for granting compensation of this kind, and that such payment cannot redeem the petitioners from undergoing the punishment as ordered by the appellate court. However, since the amount had been deposited in connection with the writ proceedings alone and could not serve the purpose the petitioners proposed, the court directed that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.

Order

The writ petition was dismissed. The three-month civil prison sentence imposed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru on 3 November 2022 in M.A. No.22/2021 was upheld. The petitioners were permitted to withdraw the Rs.2,00,000 deposited before the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition.