01.2026 MGF Deve Development Ltd v. Pankaj Ba aj Bansal Director of M3 M India Pv dia Pvt & Ors.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advo Mr. Gaurav Pathania, Advocat for the petitioner. . Advocate assisted by dvocate Advocate and Advocate assisted by Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Sr. Advoc Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advoc Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate Mr. Rubina Virmani, Advocat for the respondents. dvocate cate and NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition ition has been filed alleging violation o tion of the order dated 05.4.2024 (An 24 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned A ed Additional District Judge, Guru , Gurugram whereby the civil miscellaneo ellaneous appeal filed by the petit petitioner/plaintiff against the dismissal o issal of its application under Order 3 rder 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Sectio Section 151CPC by the trial court vi urt vide order dated 16.10.2023, has been al een allowed. The operative part of th t of the judgment dated 5.4.2024, reads as fol as follows :- “ xxx that they (defendants (ii) from raising any sort of c nts No.1 to 7) are restrained of construction upon the suit VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 2 property as detailed and des Para No.13 of the plaint…” described in Schedule ‘A’ of It is the contention of the lear e learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner ioner that in flagrant violation of n of the above injunction, the respondent ndent/defendants no.1 to 7 are carryin carrying out construction over the and. suit land. After arguing for some time, time, when this Court was not inclined to ned to agree with the submissions of ns of learned Senior Counsel for the petition etitioner, learned Senior Counsel for t el for the petitioner refers to para 61 of the j f the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in Amazon.com NV Investment ment Holdings LLC. Vs. Future R ure Retail Limited and others (2022)1 Su 1 Supreme court Cases 209, wherein herein it is held as follows: - “61. It is one thing to say th court under Order 39 Rule 2 akin to the power to punish fo Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 say that Order 39 Rule disobedience" but “willful dis facie of the view that the lett word “willful” into Order correct and may require to Bench. Suffice it to say that between enforcement of orde Rules 1 and 2 and orders m Orders which are in conte primarily to punish the offend jail sentence or both. On the 2-A is primarily intended to e Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, and fo are given vast powers which i property, apart from passing which are punitive in natu Section 17(2) of the Arbitra contained in Order 39 Rule 2 referable only to the Arbitr aforesaid judgments are an au of law to the contrary.” y that the power exercised by a le 2-A is punitive in nature and ish for civil contempt under the 971. It is quite another thing to ule 2-A requires not "mere disobedience”. We are prima letter judgment in adding the er 39 Rule 2-A is not quite to be reviewed by a larger that there is a vast difference orders passed under Order 39 rs made in contempt of court. contempt of court are made ffender by imposing a fine or a the other hand, Order 39 Rule to enforce orders passed under nd for that purpose, civil courts ich include the power to attach ssing orders of imprisonment, nature. Orders passed under itration Act, using the power le 2-A are, therefore, properly rbitration Act. Neither of the n authority for any proposition VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 3 Learned Senior Counsel for th l for the petitioner submits that as per the abo he above judgment, it is open to the p the petitioner to either approach this Court b ourt by way of present petition or to t or to take recourse to the remedy under Orde r Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. It is submi submitted that in the present case the dignity ignity of the Court of the Additional itional District Judge, Gurugram has been c been called into question by the con he contumacious conduct of the respondent ndents. As such, the petitioner has ap has approached this court by way of the prese e present Contempt Petition. Heard. This Court is not inclined to a ed to agree with the submissions put forth forth by learned Senior Counsel unsel for the petitioner. It is categorical orically held in para 61 “…that the or e orders which are in contempt are primar imarily to punish the offender by by imposing a fine or a jail sentence or ce or both. On the other hand, Orde Order 39 Rule 2-A is primarily intended to ed to enforce orders passed under O er Order 39 Rules 1 and 2…”. It is my considered view tha ew that in the present case, the petitioner i ioner is seeking the enforcement of nt of the order dated 5.4.2024; whereby respondents/defendants no.1 7 were injuncted/re cted/restrained from raising constru onstruction over the suit land. Question o tion of punishing the alleged contemn ntemners in a proceeding such as the present resent one, would arise once it is det is determined that contempt has been comm committed. Thus, the first and right re right remedy for the petitioner, as per law, is law, is to file an application under nder Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Especially cially in view of the fact that in the in the present Contempt petition, the petition etitioner is raising disputed question estions of fact in respect of the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 4 alleged con ed constructions raised by the respo respondents in violation of the order dated r dated 5.4.2024. Such a determination ination of fact, as to whether the respondent ndents have indeed raised construc nstruction or not over the suit property, ca erty, cannot be made by this Court in t urt in the present petition; and can only be asc be ascertained in a proceeding under under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Reliance m nce may be placed upon Division Be ion Bench judgment of Gujarat High Cou Court in Bhodarbhai Vicchiyabh iyabhai Pargi v. Panglabhai Khatrabha abhai Damor, (Gujarat)(DB) : Law Law Finder Doc Id # 2559695 wherein it rein it has been held as follows: contempt “A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1 of Civil Procedure, 1908 Orde of injunction order - Appli contempt proceedings under jurisdiction under "the Act" is and when a specific remedy XXXIX of "the Code" is avai proceedings, invocation o bypassing that remedy is not p B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1 invoking the contempt jurisd "the Act" should not be hype judicio must be exercised proceedings in which the injun pending, the proper remed proceedings and not through s C. Contempt of Courts Act, Procedure, 1908 - Contempt p of Order XXXIX - Remedies Held, Rule 2A of Order XX remedy for breach of injuncti proof of "willful" disobedien Contempt jurisdiction is to b not where alternative remedies ct, 1971 Section 2(b) and Code Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Breach pplicant sought initiation of der "the Act" - Held, contempt ct" is an extraordinary remedy, edy under Rule 2A of Order available in the same pending jurisdiction ot permissible. ct, 1971 - Jurisdiction - Held, sdiction of the Court under ypersensitive or emotional but the main iciously - When injunction was granted are still emedy lies within the same gh separate contempt action. Act, 1971 and Code of Civil pt proceedings versus Rule 2A dies for breach of injunction - XXXIX provides an effective nction, which does not require edience as under "the Act" - to be exercised sparingly, and edies exist.” It is also pertinent to note tha ote that the defendants no.1 to 7 have filed filed an application under Orde Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for modificatio ification, of the order dated 5.4.2024, 2024, which is presently pending before learned Trial Court since since 2.07.2025, immediately VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-3345-2025 (O & M) 5 whereafter eafter petitioner filed the presen present contempt petition on

09.07.2025

7.2025. For this reason, as well, this l, this Court will be acting with undue has e haste if contempt proceedings ings are initiated against the respondent ndents. In view of the above noted pos ted position, the present contempt petition is ion is dismissed. Needless to say, liberty is gran is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to rse to appropriate remedy under the la r the law, if so advised. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ary 21, 2026 January 21 Vijay Asija ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned soned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / N es / No VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.23 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document