1939 (12) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction to issue injunction before granting permission to sue as a pauper
- Applicability of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code
- Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code
- Power of the Court to issue temporary injunctions for property protection
- Discretionary power of the Court to grant injunctions
- Merits of the order restraining the appellant from receiving money

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against an order directing a temporary injunction to issue against the appellant, restraining him from transferring the properties in dispute and receiving amounts from the post office and Court of Wards. The respondent claimed succession to the property left by a deceased individual and sought an injunction against the appellant. The appellant contested the application, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction before granting permission to sue as a pauper. The Court considered the provisions of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, which govern the issuance of injunctions in legal proceedings.

The appellant's counsel contended that a formal 'suit' must be instituted before the Court can issue an injunction, emphasizing the need for granting permission to sue as a pauper or payment of the necessary court fees. However, the respondent argued that the Court had jurisdiction to pass the injunction order at the stage of the proceedings when it was issued. The Court deliberated on the definition of 'suit' under the Code and the implications of granting permission to sue as a pauper, acknowledging the lack of a clear definition of 'suit' in the Code.

The Court further explored the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code, emphasizing the need to ensure protection and security of the property subject to litigation. It referenced previous decisions highlighting the Court's authority to act in the interest of justice and issue temporary injunctions when necessary for property preservation. The Court cited precedents from various High Courts, including Lahore and Madras, to support its conclusion that the Court had jurisdiction to make the order for the injunction in question.

Regarding the merits of the injunction order, the Court noted the absence of materials to challenge the decision and the appellant's failure to provide a written reply to the respondent's application. As the respondent's claims were uncontested, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court, however, suggested that the appellant could seek modification of the order regarding payments from the Court of Wards, indicating that such a request would be considered by the lower Court based on the circumstances presented.