2004 (4) TMI 571 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not? Whether the power of the court to pass an order of attachment before judgment is an ancillary power or a supplemental power?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order of injunction is automatically revived upon the restoration of a suit.
2. Distinction between incidental and supplemental proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The effect of dismissal and subsequent restoration of a suit on interlocutory orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Automatic Revival of Injunction Orders:
The primary issue in this appeal is whether an order of injunction automatically revives upon the restoration of a suit. The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions and judicial precedents to determine that an order of injunction, being a supplemental proceeding, does not automatically revive upon the restoration of the suit. The Court emphasized that such orders are not merely ancillary but are supplemental in nature, intended to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The Court concluded that a fresh order is required for the revival of an injunction upon restoration of the suit.

2. Distinction Between Incidental and Supplemental Proceedings:
The judgment highlights the distinction between incidental and supplemental proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure. Incidental proceedings are those that aid the final proceedings and have a direct bearing on the result of the suit. Supplemental proceedings, on the other hand, are initiated to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated and may not necessarily impact the final outcome of the suit. The Court noted that incidental orders, being ancillary, may revive upon the restoration of a suit, whereas supplemental orders, such as injunctions, require a fresh order for revival.

3. Effect of Dismissal and Restoration on Interlocutory Orders:
The Court reviewed various precedents to address the effect of dismissal and subsequent restoration of a suit on interlocutory orders. It referred to cases like Bankim Chandra vs. Chandi Prasad, Tavvala Veeraswamy vs. Pulim Ramanna, and others, which dealt with the revival of ancillary orders upon restoration of a suit. The Court observed that while ancillary orders like stay orders may automatically revive, supplemental orders like injunctions do not. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme under the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for automatic revival of supplemental orders, and a fresh order is necessary upon restoration of the suit.

Supplemental Proceedings and Their Impact:
The judgment elaborated on the nature and impact of supplemental proceedings, including orders of attachment before judgment, temporary injunctions, and appointment of receivers. The Court noted that these orders, being supplemental, have significant consequences and can affect the rights of parties and third parties. Therefore, they require specific judicial consideration and cannot be automatically revived upon the restoration of a suit.

Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
The Court discussed various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Patna High Court, Madras High Court, Mysore High Court, and others, to illustrate the differing views on the revival of interlocutory orders. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in a manner that preserves the rights of parties and ensures justice. The Court concluded that supplemental orders, due to their nature and impact, require explicit judicial orders for revival upon restoration of a suit.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Supreme Court concluded that the interim order of injunction did not revive upon the restoration of the suit. The Court advised that, to avoid confusion, courts should explicitly state whether interlocutory orders are vacated upon dismissal of a suit and whether they are revived upon restoration. The judgment set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for express judicial orders for the revival of supplemental proceedings.

Dissenting Opinion:
One judge dissented, disagreeing with the majority opinion that the interim order of injunction did not revive upon restoration of the suit. The dissenting judge emphasized the need for specific judicial orders to clarify the status of interlocutory orders upon restoration of a suit.

← Previous Next →