1967 (3) TMI 124 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Munsiff to enforce interim orders post-final disposal of C.R.P 232/61.
2. Revival of ancillary orders upon restoration of the suit in O.S 83/1 of 1963-1964.
3. Material irregularity in the Civil Judge's order of restoration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Munsiff to Enforce Interim Orders Post-Final Disposal of C.R.P 232/61:

The primary issue was whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction to enforce the interim order dated 29-3-1961 after the final disposal of C.R.P 232/61 on 11-9-1962. The court held that the interim order passed by the High Court on 29-3-1961 could not continue to operate after the final disposal of the civil revision petition. The court referenced the decision in S.M Channamallikarjunappa v. Basavanneppa, which established that a temporary injunction cannot operate post-disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the Munsiff's order to enforce the interim order was not sustainable in law and was set aside.

2. Revival of Ancillary Orders Upon Restoration of the Suit in O.S 83/1 of 1963-1964:

The second issue was whether the restoration of the suit by the Civil Judge revived ancillary orders passed before the suit's dismissal for default. The court clarified that the revival of ancillary orders depends on the terms of the dismissal and restoration orders. If the dismissal order did not specifically vacate ancillary orders and the restoration order did not address them, then the ancillary orders would be revived. This principle was supported by decisions in Saranath Ayyangar v. Muthiah Moopanar and Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad. The court directed the Munsiff to examine the terms of the dismissal and restoration orders to determine if ancillary orders were revived.

3. Material Irregularity in the Civil Judge's Order of Restoration:

The third issue concerned whether the Civil Judge's order of restoration suffered from material irregularity. The court found that the appellate court had considered the evidence and found sufficient cause for the plaintiff's non-appearance. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Manindra Land & Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, which held that the High Court cannot question the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate court under Section 115. Therefore, the contention of material irregularity was dismissed.

Conclusion:

C.R.P No. 577/1965 was allowed, setting aside the Munsiff's order that the 2nd defendant was entitled to restoration of possession and deposit amount. The Munsiff was directed to reconsider the application regarding the revival of ancillary orders. C.R.P No. 583/1965 was dismissed. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the suit, directing the Principal Munsiff to conduct a day-to-day trial and dispose of the suit before the summer vacation.

No costs were awarded.