Injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought or to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter.

The present applications have been filed on behalf of the defendant. While I.A. No.3979/2007 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by law, I.A. No.3681/2008 is filed under Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of certain subsequent events that have occurred during the pendency of the present suit, the suit has been rendered infructuous.

2. Before proceeding to deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it is relevant to note certain facts of the case. The suit in hand has been instituted by the plaintiff praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

“a) Pass a decree of prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants prohibiting Defendants, their agents/ representatives/ employees/ assignees, etc. from presenting the 16 (sixteen) cheques for Rs. 61,63,66,140/-(Rupees Sixty One Crores sixty three lacs sixty thousand one hundred forty) on 1st April, 2007 or on any date thereafter within the validity period of these cheques and in any manner dealing with the said sixteen cheques; and b) Pass a decree of Mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants directing them to deposit the said cheques in this Hon?ble Court until the shares are transferred in lieu thereof; c) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction cancelling the said cheques on the transfer of shares by the Plaintiff to the Defendant(s). d) Pass/make such further or other order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.”

3. On an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, being IA No. 3582/2007, an ex-parte order dated 28.3.2007 was passed, restraining the defendants from presenting for encashment, the cheques, as detailed in para 42 of the plaint. After entering appearance, the defendants moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the aforesaid ex- parte injunction order passed against it, but when the said application was not decided for a period of three months, the defendants filed an appeal, being FAO(OS) No.206/2007. The Division Bench allowed the appeal of the defendants vide judgment dated 15.6.2007 and set aside the order dated 28.3.2007, with costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the plaintiff. As against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the plaintiffs preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. By its order dated 2.7.2007, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the Division Bench, while directing that the proceedings before the Single Judge would continue. However, vide its order dated 4.2.2008, the SLP of the plaintiff was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants argued that the instant suit filed by the plaintiff is legally untenable and is hit by the provisions of Order VII R 11 CPC since by way of prayer (a), the plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from presenting the cheques issued in their favour, which it is stated is ex- facie not maintainable, being barred by the provisions of Section 41(b) and (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

.5. Heavy reliance was placed on the aforementioned judgment dated 15.6.2007, passed by the Division Bench and the attention of the Court was particularly drawn to para 29 of the said judgment wherein, after discussing the provisions of Section 41(b) and (d) of the Act and the relevant case law, it was observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff would be prima facie barred in terms of Section 41(d) of the Act. It was further observed that where the maintainability of the main suit itself was in doubt, the Court cannot grant a temporary injunction of the same nature. It was urged on behalf of