Consequences of non- compliance of an order, cannot be avoided on the ground that order was void or a nullity unless declared so #indianlaws

In the context of breach of an interim order, the order can be void or nullity but, the consequences flowing from its non­ compliance or breach cannot be avoided by the party by advancing the plea that such order is void or nullity. In case when objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised and later on it is upheld even then, interim order passed therein by the Court does not become vulnerable or bad only on that ground. In case where objection is raised, it would be more proper if the objection of the jurisdiction is decided first. But if the Court happens to pass the order before deciding that, the prior interim order would not lose its efficacy only on that ground. The party cannot avoid consequence flowing or breach merely because the order is subsequently vacated in appeal. Void order has to be so declared. The party has to approach the Court for seeking such declaration 

Defendant in the instant matter was alleged of having breached the interim order and accordingly suitable action was prayed as relief in application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The action relevant and under challenge was of execution of sale deed even after passing of the order of status quo as was passed by the High Court. Action against Defendants thus was sought for causing breach of injunction.

Court noted down few facets of relevant considerations when breach of order is alleged and facet of defence available:

(1)        In the context of breach of order, the order can be void or nullity but, the consequences flowing from its non­ compliance or breach cannot be avoided by the party by advancing the plea that such order is void or nullity.

(2)        Void order has to be so declared. The party ‘… has to approach the Court for seeking such declaration…’

(3)        The reason for requirement of nullity order to be challenged is, the Court may refuse to quash such order at the instance of the person who has challenged it or on the ground of delay or waiver or any such legal ground. Further, such void order may be void for one person and it may not be so far as another person is concerned.

(4)        If breach of permanent injunction (O. 21 R, 32) vis-à-vis breach of interim injunction (O. 39 R. 2(a)) are compared, subsequent enforcement of decree in the former case and subsequent setting aside of the interim order in a later case insofar as the consequences flowing from these two situations are concerned, ­ would be different in the sense that in former case, it may happen that no further consequence would ensue but in later case the effect of breach would not be erased.

(5)        In case when objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised and later on it is upheld even then, interim order passed therein by the Court does not become vulnerable or bad only on that ground.

(6)        In case where objection is raised, it would be more proper if the objection of the jurisdiction is decided first. But if the Court happens to pass the order before deciding that, the prior interim order would not lose its efficacy only on that ground.

(7)        The party cannot avoid consequence flowing or breach merely because the order is subsequently vacated in appeal.

(8)        Punishment would differ from case to case. For instance, in case of solitary breach attachment of property may not be restored to. The Court may direct to detain the guilty person in civil prison or commit him for contempt.

(9)        The Court’s action for breach would extend also to the person who is not party to the proceedings.

(10)      It is not rule of law that unless the contemnor purges the contempt, the contemnor cannot be heard. It is only rule of practice. In fact, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of case.

(11)      In order to decide whether the contemnor should be heard or not, the Court would consider how interest of justice would be better served and also the nature of breach i.e. whether it is gross or not etc.

The factual matrix in the instant matter however indicated violation of interim order and accordingly appropriate punishment was passed for causing such violation.

[Velbai vs. Natha Harji Halai]

Gujarat HC, 16.03.2016