1994 Supreme(Cal) 369

High Court Of Calcutta
N. K. BATABYAL
VINAYAK CONCLAVE PRIVATE LTD - Appellant
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION - Respondent
Appeal Nil  Of  1994
Decided On : 12/08/1994

The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the orders of the lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional error.

Headnote:

INJUNCTION - AD INTERIM INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION - LIMITATION ACT, SECTION 5 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 39, RULE 3 - POWER OF HIGH COURT - REVISION - ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - CONSENT DECREE - PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS - BINDING EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners purchased premises No. 55/1, Kabi Bharati Sarani, Calcutta, from the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9 by valid Deeds of Conveyances executed pursuant to and in terms of the decree dated 5/07/1993 passed by the Hon'ble Court in Suit No. 544/92. Respondent No. 1, LICI, filed Title Suit No. 60/94 in the Court of the Learned Assistant District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 of that suit in respect of premises No. 55/1, Kabi Bharati Sarani, Calcutta, at a jama of Re. 1/- per annum, for a decree for recovery of physical possession of the said premises in dispute from the defendants, for a decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents and servants from changing the nature and character of the suit property from transferring the physical possession of the disputed property to any third party and from creating any disturbance to the peaceful use thereof by the plaintiff as also for a decree for temporary injunction and mandatory injunction and other reliefs. After the filing of the suit, O. P. No. 1 made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. and obtained an ex parte order of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants of the suit who are the petitioners herein from changing the nature and character of the disputed property and / or from transferring the physical possession of the suit premises or any part thereof to any third party or from creating any sort of disturbance or obstacle to the peaceful user thereof and from dealing with the suit property in any manner whatsoever prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff till the hearing of the injunction petition. The learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an interim order of injunction being Order No. 2 dated 26/07/1994.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the revisional application must fail. The Court found that the learned Trial Court had jurisdiction to pass the order of ad interim injunction, even though the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been disposed of. The Court also found that the contention of the petitioners that the LICI had suppressed material facts before the learned Trial Court was not a ground for interference in revision by the High Court, as it was a mixed question of law and fact and the revisional court was not the proper forum for agitating that point unless it went to the root of the jurisdiction of the court to decide the matter. The Court further held that the LICI was not bound to include a prayer for setting aside the impunged proceedings in the High Court, as it was not a party to those proceedings and the decree passed therein was not prima facie binding upon them.

Issues: 1. Whether the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the matter without disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? 2. Whether the principle governing the granting of ad interim injunction are the same as the principle governing the granting of temporary injunction? 3. Whether the LICI was bound to include a prayer for setting aside the impunged proceedings in the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that a competent Civil Court has jurisdiction under the inherent powers to pass an order for doing substantial justice to the parties. Section 151 of the C. P. C. recognises this power. So it cannot be said that the learned District Judge had no inherent jurisdiction to take up the matter for ad interim injunction even before the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was disposed of by him. 2. The Court held that the principles governing the granting of ad interim injunction are the same as the principle governing the granting of temporary injunction. The Court observed that injunction being an equitable relief, the party praying for injunction should come with clean hands. 3. The Court held that the LICI was not bound to include a prayer for setting aside the impunged proceedings in the High Court, as it was not a party to those proceedings and the decree passed therein was not prima facie binding upon them.

Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed. The learned Appellate Court below was directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of communication of the order.