LexMANOHAR LAL CHOPRA versus RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U6I l'r""'uil Chandra Dt6 v. Tiu Sui. o/Orissa M udllollau J. 1961 Nofltmbtr 16. 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. of the judgment there is nothing more that we need say. Petitions 79 of 1957 168 of 1958 arnl 4 of 1959 allowed. Petition 167 of 1958 dismissed. MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA t•. RAT BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL (K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA, .T. c. SHA!( and RAOHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Civil Procedure-Inherenl pou'<rB nf courl .. -Temporary Injunction-Restraining parly from procuding with •uit in anothar State-l.egality and propriety of-Code of Cid/ Proce- dure, 1908 (V of 1908), ss. 94(c) 151 : 0. 39 r. 1. M filed a suit at Asansol against H for recovery of money. Later, H filed a counter suit at Indore againtst M for recovery of money. In the Asansol suit one of the defences rai•ed by H was that the A.ansol court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. H applied to the Asansol court to stay the suit but the court refused the prayer. An appeal to the Calcutta High Court against the refusal to stay was dismissed with the direction that the preliminary issue of juri•diction should be disposed of by the trial court immediately. Thereupon, H applied to the Indore court for an injunction to ttstrain M from proceeding with the Asansol suit pending the disposal of the Indore suit and the court purporting to act under 0. 39 Code of Civil Proce- dure granted 1 he injunction. M appealed to the Madhya Bharat High Court which dismissed the appeal holding that though 0. 39 was not applicable to the case the 01 der of injunction could be made undrr the inhrrent powers of the court under s. 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Held, that the order of injunction was wrongly granted and should be vacated. Per, Wanchoo, Das Gupta, and Dayal,.D.-The Civil courts had inherent power to issue temporary injunctions in cases which were not covered by the provisions of 0. 39 Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of the Code wrre not I ... (1) S.C.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 451 exhaustive. There was no prohibition in s. 94 against the grant of a temporay injunction in circumstances not covered by 0. 39. But inherent powers were not to be exercised when their cirercisc was in conflict with the express provisions of the Code or was against the intention of the legislature. Such powers were to be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. A plaintiff of a suit in another jurisdiction could only be res- trained from proceeding with hi1 suit if the suit was vexatious and useless. It was not so in the present case. It was pro- per that the issue as to jurisdiction should be decided by the Asansol court as directed by the Calcutta High Court. The Indore court could not decide this issue. Besides, it was open to the Asansol court to ignore the order of the Indore court and to proceed with the suit. This would place Min an impos- sible position. An order of a court should not lead to such a result. Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Oharlu, A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 258 ; Govindarajalu v. Imperial Bank of India, A. I. R. 1932 Mad. 180 ; Karuppayya v. Ponnusu:ami, A. I. R. 1933 Mad. 500(2); Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Madali, A.I. R. 1938 Mad. 190 and Suhramanian v. Seetarama, A.I. R. 1940 Mad. 104, not approved. Dlianukwar Nath v. Gharuhyam Dhar, A. I. R. 194-0 All. 185, Firm Richchha Ram v. l'irm Baltko Sakai, A. I. R. 1940 All. 241, Bhagat Singh v. Jagbir Sawhney, A. I. R. 1941 Cal. 670 and Chinese Tannery Owners' A88ocialion v. Makha.n lal, A. I. R. 1952 Cal. 550, approved. Padam Sen v. State of U. P. [1961] 1 S. C.R. 884, Oohen v. Rothjield, L. R. [1919) 1 K. B. 410 and Hyman v. Helm, I,, R. (1883) 24 Ch. D. 531, relied on. Per, Shah, J.-Civil courts have no inherent power to issue injunctions in cases not covered by O. 39, rr. I and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. The power of civil courts, other than Chartered High Courts, to issue injunctions must he found within the terms of s. 94 and 0. 39, rr. I an<1 2. Where an exprns provision. ;,, made to meet a particular situation the Code must be observed and departure therefrom is not permissible. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. Padam Sm v. State of U. P. [1961) 1 S. C.R. 884, relied upon. Ci:Vn. APPBLLATE JumsDI<lTION: Civil Appeal No. 346 of 1958. 11111 Manoliarlal Chopra v. Bai Bahadur '40 Raja Seth Hirolal 452 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.