Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, SRINIVASA CHARI
Datla China Appalanarasimha Raju - Appellant
Versus
Nadimpalli Seethayamma Garu - Respondent
Decided On : 12-05-58
ORDER 39, RULE 1(C) - SCOPE OF INJUNCTION - INTERPRETATION - DECREE-HOLDER EXECUTING DECREE - NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant purchased two items of property in execution of a decree obtained by him. The Rani of Jaipur, who had made a gift of the items to the respondents, stated that she had no subsisting interest in them. The appellant applied for delivery of possession of the items. The respondents filed a suit for a declaration of their title and a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of the items. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the respondents filed an appeal. Pending the appeal, they filed an application for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of the items.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Order 39, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the court to grant a temporary injunction to restrain a defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury or loss to the plaintiff, does not apply to the case of a decree-holder seeking to execute a decree obtained by him. The court reasoned that the execution of a decree lawfully obtained does not constitute an injury or loss to the judgment debtor, and that the decree-holder is entitled to pursue his legitimate remedies.
Issues: Whether Order 39, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the case of a decree-holder seeking to execute a decree obtained by him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression "injury or loss" in Order 39, Rule 1(c) in light of the well-settled principle of interpretation that where the same language is used in a subsequent legislation, there is an implication that the Legislature has adopted the interpretation put upon the earlier section by the judiciary. The court noted that several High Courts had held that the execution of a decree lawfully obtained does not constitute an injury or loss within the meaning of Order 39, Rule 2, and that the same interpretation should be applied to the expression "injury or loss" in Order 39, Rule 1(c).
Final Decision: The court held that Order 39, Rule 1(c) does not comprehend the acts of a party which are wrongful and not the legitimate acts of persons who pursue the remedies allowed to them by law, and that the decision in Venkanna v. Venkata Rao, 1957 ALT 90 (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 453), which held that Order 39, Rule 1(c) does not apply to the case of a decree-holder seeking to execute a decree obtained by him, has rightly interpreted the scope of that clause.
( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to the Full Bench: "what is the scope of Sub-rule (c) of Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure ?" The facts which have given me to this reference may be briefly stated. In execution of the decree obtained by him in O. S. No. 28 of 1933, on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam, the appellant purchased two items of property subject to the rights of the Rani of Jaipur. The appellant applied for delivery of possession of those items. When notice of this application was given to the Rani, she stated that she had made a gift of them to the respondents and that therefore, she had no longer any subsisting interest in them. The Court directed delivery of the aforesaid items to the appellant. Thereupon the respondents filed O. S. No. 9 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam, for a declaration of their title in respect of the said items and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of those items. This suit was eventually dismissed and against the decree of dismissal, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in this Court. Pending the appeal, they filed CMP. No. 3885 of 1956 for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of the items. Our learned brother Mr. Justice Bhima-sankaram, granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from obtaining delivery of items I and 3, subject to certain conditions. Against this order the appellant preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal.
( 2 ) WHEN this appeal came on for hearing before the Referring Bench, it was contended by the appellant that the application fora temporary injunction to restrain Mm from taking delivery of possession of the items in question, was not maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision in Venkanna v. Venkata Rao, 1957 ALT 90 (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 453), which held that the words cause injury or loss to the plaintiff in Clause (c) of Order 39, Rule 1, introduced by the Andhra High Court, would not take in the case of a decree-holder who seeks to execute the decree obtained by him.
( 3 ) NOW, an injunction is defined in Halsburys Laws as a judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing. The law relating to injunctions is contained in Sections. 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act and Order 39, Rule. 1 to 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of the Specific Relief Act deal with permanent injunctions and those of the Civil Procedure Code regulate the grant of temporary injunctions.
( 4 ) IT will be convenient to commence the examination of the question by a reference to Order 39, B. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before clause (c) was added by the Andhra High Court, Order 39, Rule 1 ran thus : "where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise : (a) that any property in dispute, in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors. The Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale; removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. "
( 5 ) APART from this Rule, the Court has power to grant a temporary injunction under Rule 2, which reads: " (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other id-jury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury compl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.