STATE OF BIHAR versus RANI SONABATI KUMARI

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 20-09-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Stpl1:mb~r ao. 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
RA~I SONABATI KUMAR! 
(S. K. DAs, J. L. KAPUR, 
K. SuBBA H.Ao 
.M. HIDAYATULLAH a.nd N. RAJAOOPALA 
AYYANOAR, JJ.) 
Temporary injunction-Disobedience by Stale of order issued 
against it-Proceeding i11 contempt against the Slal<-M ainlarn-
ablity-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act I' of 1908), 0. 39, 
r. 2(3)_:Constitutio11 of India, Art. 300. 
The respondent sued the State of Bihar for a declaration 
that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was ultra vires, void and 
unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction restraining the 
State and its off!fers or agents from issuing any notification 
thereunder in respect of her estate or taking possession thereof 
and on a petition filed along with the plaint obtained an order 
of temporary injunction against the State in terms of her pray-
er, pending the hearing of the suit. More than a year thereafter, 
the State made an application under 0. 39, r. 4 of the Code for 
a discharge of the order of temporary injunction on the ground 
that the impugned Act had in another case been declared valid 
by the Supreme Court. 
Before that application could, however. 
be h~ard, the State o! Bihar, on May 19, 1952, issued a notifica-
tion under s. 3(1) o! the Act, authenticated by the Additional 
Secretary to the Government, declaring that, amongst others, 
the respondent's estate had vested in the State o! Bihar under 
the provisions of the Act. Thereupon the respondent moved 
the trial Court for taking action against the State under 0. 39, 
r. 2(3) of the Code. The contention on behalf of the State was 
that in view of Art. 31-B of the Constitution the issue o! the 
notification was lawful and could not constitute contempt of 
Court. The Subordinate Judge held that this was no defence 
to the application by the respondent and directed attachment of 
the appellant's property to the value o! Rs. 5,000 and the High 
Court on appeal affirmed that decision. 
Held, that the courts below took the correct view of the 
matter and that the appeal must be dismissed. 
The procedure laid down by 0. 39, r. 2(3) o! the Code o! 
Civil Procedure is remedial and essentially one for the enforce-
ment or execution of an order of ten1porary injunction passed 
under 0. 39, r. 2(1) and is available against the State although 
the provision for detention may not apply to it. It is wrong to 
say that it is either contrary to Art. 300 of the Constitution or 
hit by the rule that no action lies against the State m tort or 
for a wrong-doing entailing punishment or compensation. 
District Board of Bhagalpur v, Province of Bihar, A.l.R. 1954 
.. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
729 
Pat. 529 and Tarafatullah v. S. N. Maitra, A.LR. 1952 Cal. 919, 
distinguished. 
There is also no basis for the co.ntention that the State is 
not expressly or by necessary implication mentioned in 0. 39, 
r. 2(3). 
The word 'person' used by it, properly construed, 
includes the defendant against whom the order of injunction is 
primarily issued as also the defendant's agents, servants and 
workmen. Since the court'~ power to issue an order of temporary 
injunction against the. State under 0. 39, r. 2(1) cannot be in 
doubt, disobedience of such an order when issued necessarily 
attracts 0. 39, r. 2(3) of the Code. 
Director of Rationing & Distribution v. Corporation of Calwtta, 
[1961] 1 S.C.R. 158, held inapplicable. 
Held, further, that when once an order is passed which the 
Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of the State no less. 
than any private· party to obey it so long as it stands, and the 
conduc_t of the State Government in the instant case in issuing 
the notification at a time when its application for vacating the 
injunction was 'still pending and the attitude taken up by it 
after the application under 0. 39, r. 2(3) was made and persis-
ted in till the end must be disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 83 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated June 
30, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Appeal from 
Original Order No. 255 of 1952. 
Lal Narayan Sinha and S. P. Varma, for the appel- · 
!ant. 
· 
· A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, B. K. Saran, D. P. Singh 
and K. L; Mehta, for the respondent. 
1960. September 20. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
AYYANGAR J.-The State of Bihar is the appellant 
in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate 
granted by the High Court of Patna under Art. 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.