*Smt. Lavanya C V. Vittal Gurudas Pai (D) (2025 SC)* 1. U/O.39 R.2A CPC, even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased. It may be a different matter that the rigour of such disobedience may be toned down if the order is subsequently set aside. 2. *Kanwar Singh Saini V. High Court of Delhi (2012 SC)* was quoted: “_Application u/O.39 R.2A CPC Lies only where the disobedience or breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court u/O.39 R.1&2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No Litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of a case in the court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case, and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution court u/O.21 R.32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt, which are summary in nature. Application u/O.39 R.2A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available u/O.21 R.32 CPC and resort to contempt proceedings. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions of O.39 R.2A CPC would also include the case of breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of the decree_”.