TAYABHAI M. BAGASARWALLA AND ANR. versus HIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 19-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TAYABHAI M. BAGASARWALLA AND ANR. 
v. 
HIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1997 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, .TJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code 1908-0rder 39 Rules 1, 2, 2A-Maharashtra 
Amendment Act No. 65 of 1977-Section 9A-Violation of interim order of 
injunction passed by a cowt found to have no jurisdiction-Effect of-Held, 
C orders passed by the Civil Court are effective till the Court decides jurisdic-
tio11-Violatio11 of the order punishable. 
D 
Respondent No. 1 is the tenant of the ground floor portion in the 
suit house belonging to appellant. The building was destroyed by fire in 
1985. The appellant filed a suit in City Civil Court in 1991 for a perpetual 
injunction restraining the Respondent from carrying out any construction 
in the suit premises, on the ground that in as much as the building, which 
was the subject matter of tenancy between the parties, has been destroyed 
by fire, the tenancy of the first defendant has come to an end. The Civil 
Court granted an interim injunction and the application for vacating the 
E interim injunction was dismissed. The Appeal preferred by the defendants 
was dismissed. 
The plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC 
for punishing the defendants 1 & 2 for flouting the order of interim 
injunction. The defendants also moved an application under Section 9A 
F CPC for questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the 
said suit. The Civil Court held that it did possess the jurisdiction to try 
the suit and also affirmed the interim injunction. 
The Civil Court also allowed the application under 0. 39 R. 2A CPC 
G and held that there is a breach of interim order and committed the second 
respondent to imprisonment for a period of one month. 
On appeals filed by defendants the ffigh Court stayed the order 
punishing the defendant for contempt but did not stay the order granting 
injunction in favour of plaintiffs. Subsequently, the High Court vacated 
H the order granting stay of CO!Jtempt proceedings on the basis of a report 
152 
-
•· -
TAYABHAIM.BAGASARWALLAv. HINDRUBBERINDS.P.LTD. 153 
of a Commissioner. ·The application to set aside the order was dismissed A 
by the High Court on the ground that the defendants have usefully tloated 
the order and they were not willing to purge the contempt and restore the 
premises to the state they were in 1991. 
In the meanwhile, in the Revision filed by defendants, the High Court 
held that the Bombay City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain 'the B 
suit. While holding so, the High Court disagreed with a decision of Kerala 
High Court and following an earlier judgment of the same court, it was 
held that destruction of the house by fire does not put an end to the tenancy 
of the defendants. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order 
was dismissed and the tenant was directed to make construction/alteration C 
in accordance with law. Before the High Court the defendants were per· 
mitted to reoccupy and carry on their business in their premises. On 
Appeal, the Supreme Court directed High Court to decide the Appeal 
expeditiously. 
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants D 
holding that in as much as the Bombay City Civil Court is found to have 
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, defendants 1 & 2 cannot be punished 
for disobeying the interim orders made in such suit, for the reason that 
the said interim order must be equally held to be without jurisdiction. 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended by the Appellant E 
both on principle as well as with reference to Section 9A of Civil Procedure 
Code (Maharashtra Amendment), that violation of an disobedience of 
or.ders of injunction on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction 
would be' subversive of the Rule of Law and would seriously erode the 
majesty and digllity of the courts; that if a party thinks that an order made F 
by the Civil Court is without jurisdiction the appropriate course open to 
' 
' 
him is to approach the court with the said pleas but it is not open to him 
to tlout the said order assuming that the order is without jurisdiction and 
that this principle has been recognized and incorporated in Section 9A of 
CPC (inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act No. 65 of 1977). 
The Respondent contended that although the defendants argned 
before the Single Judge that the finding of fact recorded by Civil Court is 
not sustainable, it has 

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