( 1 ) WHETHER this Court or for that matter any Civil Court in India could injunct a person from pursuing his lawfully instituted proceedings in a foreign Court and whether such injunction would amount to staying the proceedings of that Court are the interesting questions arising in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appeal is directed against an ex-parte interim order dated 27. 7. 2004 passed by the learned Trial Judge in respondent s suit No. 1470/2002 and interim stay matter (IA No. 2785/2003) directing appellant not to proceed any further in his case pending in the Court of Magistrate Judge PEPE, United States District Court at michigan, USA.

( 3 ) THE parties are involved in a dispute on infringement of copyright in software under the name digifile . While Appellant has filed a suit at Michigan, usa seeking cancellation of US copyright registration obtained by the respondent, the respondent has also filed a declaratory and injunction suit in this regard along with an application under Section 39, Order 1 and 2 CPC for grant of an interim injunction restraining Appellant from proceeding in any manner with his case in the michigan Court. This application appears to have been filed in the backdrop of the statement made by Appellant s counsel before the learned Trial Judge here on 10. 4. 2003 that appellant would not proceed with his case in the US District Court till the statement of one Harish Verma was recorded under Order 10, CPC in this Court. This statement was later extended till 29. 10. 2003 and yet appellant is said to have made a statement in the US District Court that suit filed by Respondent No. 1 in this court stood disposed of pursuant whereto US District Court resumed its proceedings in the Appellant s case.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT reacted to this by filing a contempt petition against appellant and seeking a restraint order against him from proceeding with his case at US Court. Learned Trial Judge on consideration of this application found that appellant had admitted having wrongly conveyed the status of the Court proceedings of this Court to the US District Court and making it as a basis passed impugned ex-parte order dated 27. 7. 2004 injuncting appellant from proceeding with his case in the US Court.

( 5 ) APPELLANT challenges this order on the ground that learned Trial Judge had no power to injunct him from pursuing his case before the US Court. It is submitted by appellant s counsel that there was no provision in the CPC or any law in force in India which empowered the learned Judge to injunct him from pursuing his lawfully instituted proceedings which amounted to staying proceedings of a foreign court by this Court.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent Mr. Malhotra maintained that this Court was competent to injunct the appellant from proceeding with his case in the US Court. He referred to two Supreme Court judgments in ONGC Vs. Western Company of north America (AIR 1987 SC 674 ) and M/s. V/o. Tractoroexport, Moscow Vs. M/s. Tarapore and Co. (AIR 1971 SC 1) and a judgment of this Court in Palm Print textiles (India) Ltd. Vs. British Millerain Co. Ltd. (AIR 2002 Delhi 497), to support his contention.

( 7 ) APPELLANT s plea that the Civil Court had no power to injunct a person from pursuing his legal remedy appears attractive on the face of it because there is no express power provision in the CPC which empowers a Civil Court to injunct a person from pursuing a lawfully instituted remedy. Order 39 CPC also does not authorise issuance of such injunction. But the matter would not rest at that because the Civil Court was competent to grant a temporary injunction in appropriate cases in exercise of its inherent power in cases not covered by Order 39 CPC to promote the interests of justice.

( 8 ) THE courts are, after all, constituted for doing justice and it is inherent in the discharge of their functions to remove and rectify and to undo any injustice. Therefore, even in the absence of any provision in the CPC vesting a partic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document