SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Cal) 152

High Court Of Calcutta
SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY
M/S.ARPEE PROPERTIES PVT.LTD - Appellant
Versus
UNITED BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O.  655  Of  1985
Decided On : 04/18/1985

Advocates Appeared:
L.P.TIVARI, PRADIP GHOSH, Tapan Kumar Banerjee, TARUN CHATTEJEE

The inherent power of the Court under S. 151, C. P. C. cannot be invoked where the remedy by way of appeal is not illusory.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - S. 151 - Maintainability of application under S. 151, C. P. C. - Inherent power of the Court - Exercise of - Conditions precedent - Order under O. 39, R. 4, C. P. C. - Appealable - Remedy by way of appeal - Whether illusory - Held, no.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit and obtained an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making payment of a certain amount to each other. The defendants filed an application under O. 39, R. 4, C. P. C. for vacating the ad interim injunction, which was allowed ex parte in the absence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an application under S. 151, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte order and for rehearing the application under O. 39, R. 4, C. P. C., which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the application under S. 151, C. P. C. was not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application under S. 151, C. P. C. was not maintainable as the order under O. 39, R. 4, C. P. C. was appealable and the remedy by way of appeal was not illusory.

Issues: Whether the application under S. 151, C. P. C. was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power of the Court under S. 151, C. P. C. cannot be invoked where the remedy by way of appeal is not illusory. In the instant case, the remedy by way of appeal against the ex parte order dated 14-8-84 was not illusory as the appellate Court could have sent back the case on remand for fresh decision after setting aside the said ex parte order because of its non-speaking character or could have decided the matter itself under O. 41, R. 24, C. P. C. on the basis of materials in the record.

Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed.

SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, J.


( 1 ) THE caveat having been lodged, this revisional application has been heard as a contested application. In this revisional application the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-3-85 passed by the learned Judge 8th Bench in charge of 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, rejecting on the ground of maintainability, the plaintiff's application under S. 151 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 14-8-84 whereby the application under O. 39, R. 4 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed ex prate and the ad interim order of injunction already granted was vacated, and for rehearing the petition under O. 39, R. 4 Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff brought the Title Suit No. 660 of 1984 against the opposite party-defendants and filed an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 (United Bank of India) from making payment to the extent of Rs. 52,200/being the amount of two cheques to the defendant No. 2 (M/s. Navin Trading Corporation) or the defendant No. 3 (B. N. Jaiswal) the proprietor of M/s. Navin Trading Corporation) from the current account No. 455 maintained with the defendant No. 1 and also for temporary injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from collecting or drawing the aforesaid sum from the said account maintained with the defendant No. 1. The trial Court passed the ad interim order of injunction accordingly pending the hearing of the petition for temporary injunction.

( 3 ) THE defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed application under O. 39, R. 4 of Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ad interim order of injunction and the said application was fixed on 14-8-84 for hearing. The plaintiff filed hegira on that date. At about 1-30 p. m. the plaintiff's Advocate along with the plaintiff's representative Mr. Jagadish Sureka on enquiry from the learned Judge 8th Bench in-charge of the 12th Bench, also, came to learn that he would not take up any contested matter of the 12th Bench for hearing and accordingly they left the Court. On 16-4-84 the plaintiff's advocate consulted the cause-list to ascertain the date of hearing but to his surprise came to learn from the cause-list that the petition under O. 39, R. 4, Civil Procedure Code was allowed ex parte on 14-8-84 because of the absence of the plaintiff without going into the merit of the petition and ad interim order of injunction was vacated. The plaintiff then filed the application under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code which was however rejected by the impugned order on the finding that the application under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable as the order under 0. 39. R. 4, Civil Procedure Code was appealable.

( 4 ) MR. Tarun Chatterjee, appearing for the plaintiff petitioner has submitted that although the order under O. 39, R. 4, Civil Procedure Code is appealable under O. 43, r. 1, Civil Procedure Code, still in the absence of material for plaintiff/petitioner's failure to appear before the Court at the time when the matter was called on for hearing and in view of the non-speaking character of the order without basing the order on any material in the record, the remedy by way of appeal though available would have been illusory and that accordingly the application under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the said order and for rehearing the petition under O. 39, R. 4, Civil Procedure Code was maintainable and that the learned Judge by rejecting the application under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code only on the ground of non-maintainability has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Mr. Chatterjee in support of his such submission has relied on the decision in the cases reported in the Law Journals as mentioned hereunder :- 1. AIR 1975 Cal 80 (FB), (Smt. Bimla Devi v. Aghore Chandra Mallick ). 2. (1978) 1 Cal LJ 174 , (Balaram Ojha v. Star Trading and Investment















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top