D.N. Roy, J.
1. This revision came up before one of us and in view of certain conflict of decisions, Kefayat Husain v. Abdul Rashid (decided by Agarwala, J.) reported in 1951 AWR (HC) 636 (A) and an unreported decision in Joshi Girjadharji v. Rao Sanwal Das Shahpuri, F. A. P. Order No. 219 of 1954 (decided by Mukherji, J. on 12-9-1957: (reported in AIR 1958 All 630) (3), the matter has been referred to a Division Bench on account of the important question of law involved in the case.
2. The facts giving rise to this case may be briefly stated. A suit No, 138 of 1952 was instituted in the court of the Munsif of Basti. During the pendency of that suit, an application for the issue of a commission and also for the issue of a temporary injunction, was made by the plaintiff. On the 30-5-1952, the court passed an ex parte order directing a pleader of the court to make local inspection as a commissioner and to serve an interim injunction pending disposal of the application, in terms proposed by the plaintiff.
Shri R. P. Tripathi, the commissioner made the local inspection and he served an order of injunction on the defendants. Later on, an application was moved before the Munsif to the effect that the defendants had disobeyed the injunction and it was prayed that action be taken against them under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code. The Munsif, by his order dated the 12th of September, 1955, held that there was a disobedience and he directed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that the parties in breach be detained in civil prison for a period of one month.
As against that order, an appeal was preferred before the lower appellate court. The application was opposed inter alia, on the ground that the parwana of injunction served upon the defendants was vague and not capable of understanding without a copy of the plaint, which was not supplied to the defendants; that the parwana of injunction did neither bear the signature of the presiding officer of the court nor oi any authorised official and, therefore, an alleged disobedience thereof was not actionable; and that the order of injunction did not relate to the constructions, which were later on found to have been made by the defendants.
3. A preliminary objection was taken before the lower appellate court to the effect that the order having been passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code it was not appealable because what has been made appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), was an appeal from an order under Rules 1, 2, 4 and 10 of Order 39. The lower appellate court, relying upon the case in Kefayat Husain v. Abdul Rashid 1951 All WR (HC) 636 (A), gave effect to that objection and held that no appeal lay from the order in question, which was passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A.
The lower appellate court, without entering into the merits of the various other grounds of objections taken on behalf of the appellants in their grounds of appeal incidentally observed that the construction of the walls in question was continued by the defendants in disobedience of the order oi injunction and, therefore, the order of detention of the appellants for a period of one month in civil prison, was quite justified.
4. The first question, which has been contended before us, is that the order in question was appealable under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the amendment of Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code by this Court by deleting Sub-rules (3) and (4), and by adding Rule 2-A and the failure of the Court to make a consequential amendment in Order 43 Rule 1 (r) does not take away that right. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the orders from which appeal lies.
It says that an appeal shall lie from an order under any of the provisions of the Code directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree. An arrest or detention in civil prison under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code, would be an order which would fall under Section 104(1)(h) of the Code and will, therefore, be appealable independently of whether a right of appeal has been given under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code.
5. Originally Order 39, Rule 2, C. P. C. contained Sub-rules (3) and (4). Sub-rule (3) dealt with disobedience or breach of any of the terms of an order of temporary injunction. Sub-rule (4) dealt with an attachment made by way of punishment for breach of an order of injunction. These sub-rules have been removed from Rule 2 and placed under a separate rule, as Rule 2-A by a local amendment dated the 15th of September, 1941. The amended Rule 2-A reads as follows:
'2-A (1) : In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under Rule 1 or Rule 2, Sub-rule (2), or of breach of any terms of any such injunction, the Court in which the suit is proceeding may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.'
6. There is a Sub-rule (2) to Rule 2-A but we are not concerned with that sub-rule in the present case.
7. Order 43, Rule 1 states that an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104 of the Code. Sub-rule (r) of that rule says that an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39, is appealable. It is evident that when Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code was amended by this Court in 1941, no consequential amendment of Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code was made. It was observed by Agarwala, J. in 1951 All WR (HC) 636 (A) that it was by an oversight that Rule 2-A had not been added in Sub-rule (r) of Order 43. Rule 1, but since this was not clone, it must be held that no appeal lay to the lower appellate court.
A similar view was taken by one of us in Hakim Ullah v. Ram Sanehi Lal, Civil Revn. No. 838 of 1955, D/- 17-1-1958 (All) (C). We have looked into both these decisions and it is evident therefrom that the question was never argued in those two cases that Section 104 of the Code independently gives a person a right of appeal irrespective of Order 43, Rule l(r) of the Code where an order has been passed against such a person under any of the provisions of the Code directing his arrest or detention in the civil prison except where such arrest or detention is in execution, of a decree.
This specific point came to be considered by Mukerji, J. in AIR 1958 All 639 (B), Mukerji, J. considered the decision of Agarwala, J. in Kefayat Husain v. Abdul Rashid, (A) and came to the conclusion that even apart from Order 43, Rule 1, a right of appeal from orders is provided for, by Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this right has not been curtailed by Order 43 of the Code. We are in respectful agreement with that view.
The language of Section 104 of the Code is quite clear on the point and if by that language a person is given the right of appeal from an order under any of the provisions of this Code directing the arrest or detention in the Civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree, that right would stand untrammelled by any fetters which may be found to exist by the failure to make a consequential amendment in Order 43, Rule 1(r) after the amendment in Order 39. Rule 2 of the Code, as mentioned above.
The orders, which are made appealable under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code, would fall within the ambit of Section 104(1)(i) of the Code, as orders made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules. An order of the nature with which we are here concerned would, however, fall under Section 104(1)(h) of the Code and, therefore, it could be appeal-able independently of the provisions of Order 43. We are, therefore, of opinion that 1951 All WR (HC) 636 (A) and Civil Revn. No. 838 of 1955 D/-17-1-1958 (All) (C) were not correctly decided. An appeal, therefore, lay from the order in question before the lower appellate court.
8. At one stage it was urged before us that even on merits, we should not interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate court in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction because the lower appellate court has found that there has been a breach of the injunction order. At a subsequent stage of the argument, it was, however, conceded that the lower appellate Court has not taken a full appraisal of the matters that were urged on behalf of the appellants, namely, as to whether the injunction order was properly drawn up and signed by the presiding officer of the Court or by any official authorised on behalf of the court and whether the order of injunction was also served with a copy of the plaint in which alone reference to the walls was made.
Those points have certainly got to be decided by the lower appellate court before that Court were to come to the conclusion that there has been a breach of lawful injunction served upon the party, for which the party may be visited with any penalty.
9. Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that this revision must be allowed and the appeal should go back to the lower appellate court for decision on merits. We direct accordingly.
10. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this Court.