1950 (3) TMI 35 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of interim injunction granted by the learned Judge during the pendency of an appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order of interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1.
3. Applicability of Order 1 in granting interim injunctions.
4. Interpretation of previous judgments regarding the High Court's power to grant interim injunctions in appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a suit for partition, which was opposed by the respondent claiming fraud in obtaining the decree. The respondent sought an interim injunction to restrain the passing of the final decree in the partition suit. The learned Judge issued an interim injunction, which the respondent challenged through a Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that the Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.

2. The respondent's advocate contended that the interim injunction was just and convenient to avoid prejudicing the pending appeal. However, it was highlighted that the Judge's power to grant an interim injunction is governed by Order 39, Rule 1, and not based solely on equity or convenience. The Judge must assess the applicability of Order 1 to determine the legitimacy of issuing an interim injunction.

3. Reference was made to a Calcutta High Court decision, but it was noted that the judgment did not explicitly consider the applicability of Order 1 in granting interim injunctions. The Madras High Court's stance was cited, emphasizing that the Court lacks inherent power to issue injunctions in appellate matters outside the scope of Order 1. Previous judgments reiterated this limitation on the High Court's power to grant interim injunctions in mofussil Court proceedings.

4. The Court clarified that the appellant, having obtained a preliminary decree for partition, was entitled to pursue the final decree and execute it. Since there was no immediate threat to the disputed property, the Judge's interim injunction lacked jurisdiction. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and dismissed the respondent's application, emphasizing the necessity to adhere to the procedural requirements and jurisdictional limits in granting interim injunctions.

5. In conclusion, the High Court overturned the interim injunction order, emphasizing the importance of following procedural rules and jurisdictional boundaries in granting such relief during the pendency of an appeal. The respondent was permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, and costs were awarded to the appellant.