Order XXXIX Rule 2A is Not Intrinsically Punitive but Aimed at Ensuring Compliance: Kerala High Court Explains Scope of Civil Contempt Powers

Kerala High Court pronounced a significant ruling clarifying the contours of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The Court emphasized that the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not inherently punitive but is primarily a remedial mechanism to secure obedience to court orders. Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Order XXXIX Rule 2A does not contain an intrinsic punitive element, rather it is intended to ensure compliance.” 
 
This judgment gains importance as it revisits the delicate balance between enforcing interlocutory injunctions and protecting parties from disproportionate penalties, particularly imprisonment, unless necessary. 

The dispute arose from a property matter between Rekha R. and Meera R. The petitioners (Rekha and others) were defendants in an injunction suit where an interim injunction had been granted, preventing them from constructing or making any structural alterations to the suit property. Alleging violation of this injunction, the respondent (Meera R.) moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC seeking penal action. 
 
The trial court, upon finding that the petitioners had indeed violated the injunction by continuing construction, ordered one month's simple imprisonment and payment of Rs. 25,000 as compensation. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Kerala High Court. 

The core issue before the Court was:  Whether the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is primarily punitive or a tool to secure compliance? 
 
The High Court analyzed the jurisprudence around Rule 2A CPC and clarified its character, observing: “The Rule does not contain an intrinsic punitive element, but provides a mechanism for securing the enforcement of injunction orders.” 
  
The Court elaborated that, while Order XXXIX Rule 2A empowers the Court to order detention of the violator or attachment of property, the object is not punishment per se, but to prevent further violation and to enforce the original order. The Court quoted the well-established principle: 
 
“Even when disobedience is found, the Court has discretion to decide whether punishment is necessary depending on the facts and purpose.” 
 

While acknowledging that the petitioners had indeed undertaken construction violating the injunction, the Court found that such violation, in the facts and circumstances, did not warrant the extreme step of imprisonment, particularly when the construction was near completion. 
 
“It is well within the discretion of the Court to refuse imprisonment despite holding violation, if the ends of justice can be met otherwise.” 

The Court emphasized that: “The ultimate object is to see that the temporary injunction is obeyed or enforced and not to punish the violator for the sake of punishment alone.” 
 
The Court further noted that the petitioners had stopped further construction and the structure was almost complete, making the purpose of enforcement substantially achieved. 

The Kerala High Court, invoking its discretionary powers, set aside the trial court’s order directing imprisonment but upheld the compensation of Rs. 25,000, modifying it to serve as a deterrent. The Court ruled: “Detention in civil prison shall be resorted to only when necessary to secure obedience to the injunction, and not as an automatic consequence of violation.” 

The Court also clarified that enforcement under Rule 2A should not convert itself into a parallel criminal prosecution. 
Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the Original Petition by vacating the sentence of imprisonment, confirming the compensation, and directing the parties to strictly adhere to the subsisting injunction. 

This judgment is a notable reaffirmation of the principle that civil contempt or violation of interim orders is governed by purposive enforcement, not blind punishment. 
The Court reiterated that: “The purpose of Rule 2A is to secure compliance, not to penalize.” 

This ruling will serve as an important precedent to guide subordinate courts while exercising powers under Order 
XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, cautioning against excessive reliance on imprisonment when alternative remedies are sufficient to achieve compliance. 
 

Date of Decision: 03 April 2025