9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the sale deed was illegal and was not binding on her because the same had been executed in violation of the order of temporary injunction passed on 06.05.1971 in Suit No. 49 of 1970. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is legally maintainable. 2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppels, waiver and lispendens. 3. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action to file the suit. 4. Whether the decree passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1977 is fraudulent, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiff. 5. Whether the plaintiff has acquired title on the basis of sale deed dated 9.11.1973. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any decree or relief. 5. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that in view of the order of injunction passed in Suit No.49 of 1970, Bhuneshwar Tanti was not entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were very much aware of the order of injunction passed in Title Suit No.49 of 1970 and said order dated 6.5.1971 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of an alienation made in violation of an order of injunction was considered in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others (1997) 3 SCC 443 and the following propositions were laid down: According to this section, if an objection is raised to the jurisdiction of the court at the hearing of an application for grant of, or for vacating, interim relief, the court should determine that issue in the first instance as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the relief already granted. An application raising objection to the jurisdiction to the court is directed to be heard with all expedition. Sub-rule (2), however, says that the command in sub-rule (1) does not preclude the court from granting such interim relief as it may consider necessary pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction. In our opinion, the provision merely states the obvious. It makes explicit what is implicit in law. Just because an objection to the jurisdiction is raised, the court does not become helpless forthwith - nor does it become incompetent to grant the interim relief. It can. At the same time, it should also decide the objection to jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure Code. The learned counsel submitted that proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A are a part of the coercive process to secure obedience to its injunction and that once it is found that the Court has no jurisdiction, question of securing obedience to its orders any further does not arise. The learned counsel also submitted that enforcing the interim order after it is found that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the said suit would not only be unjust and illegal but would also reflect adversely upon the dignity and authority of the Court. It is also suggested that the plaintiff had instituted the present suit in the Civil Court knowing fully well that it had no jurisdiction to try it. It is not possible to agree with any of these submissions not only on principle but also in the light of the specific provision contained in Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment). In the light of the said provision, it would not be right to say that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass interim orders or interim injunction, as the case may be, pending decision on the question of jurisdiction. The orders made were within the jurisdiction of the Court and once this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te directions. For example, take a case, where a party has been dispossessed from the suit property by appointing a receiver or otherwise; in such a case, the Court should, while holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, put back the party in the position he was on the date of suit. But this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force, these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied) 11. The same issue was considered in Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd. and others v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. and others (2012) 8 SCC 384, and it was held : At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to mention that Respondent 1 had filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13.9.1988 executed by Respondent 2. The appellants and Bhagwati Developers are total strangers to that agreement. They came into the picture only when Respondent 2 entered into a clandestine transaction with the appellants for sale of the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
