Court has jurisdiction to issue an order of injunction u/s 151 C. P. C. to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. appeal no 132 of 1978 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant to issue an order of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 (opposite party No. 3 in this revision) to deposit in Court the amount withdrawn by him in the circumstances mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts on the allegation that he and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 constitute a partnership firm in the name and style of "Radhakrushna Enterprisers", impleaded as defendant No. 1 in this suit. It has been stated that defendant no 2 had undertaken a contract work under the State Government and the partnership was constituted as defendant No. 2 alone could not complete the execution of the work. According to the plaintiff, the partnership deed executed between the parties on 16-3-68 contain stipulations that defendant No. 3 would act as the Managing Partner and was authorised to withdraw the money due to the firm, maintain accounts and operate the same. The power of attorney was accordingly executed in his favour and the State Government was intimated about the authority of the partnership firm vis-a-vis the stipulation as to the withdrawal of the money by defendant No. 3. It is also alleged that another agreement was executed on 8-10-71 between defendant No. 2 and the other partners of the firm in which it was agreed that it is defendant No. 3 alone who would withdraw all amounts from the State Government on account of the works executed by the firm. There was some dispute amongst the partners for which the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the clause of the partnership deed. The Arbitrator passed an award that defendant No. 2 would withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,27,458/- on behalf of the firm. The plaintiff has thereafter filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs and made an application for issue of temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 2 not to withdraw the amount in pursuance of the award and to direct the State Government to deposit in Court the amount awarded. The said application was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge against which Misc. appeal No. 132 of 1978 was filed by the present petitioner. The learned District Judge found that the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge for refusing injunction was misconceived. He further found that even if the matter would not come under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. the Court had Jurisdiction to issue an order of injunction u/s 151 C. P. C. to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court. In his ultimate analysis, the learned District Judge has found that there is material on record to show that the amount under the award is due to the firm and not to any individual partner and that it is a fit case where the Court should have granted injunction to secure the amount pending decision of the suit. The learned District Judge has also held that the order of the learned trial Court is palpably wrong and cannot be supported.

3. After the filing of the appeal, the District Judge had passed an order of temporary injunction and restrained the State of Orissa not to make any payment in terms of the award to defendant No. 2. But before the order had reached its destination, payment of the amount appears to have been made to defendant No. 2 It was therefore prayed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants before the learned District Judge that in view of the subsequent development, it is appropriate that the Court should direct defendant No. 2 by way of mandatory injunction to deposit the amount in Court. The learned District Judge considered this prayer of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the amount under the award had not been received by defendant No. 2 when the suit was filed and that the status quo ante would be maintained if a direction to defendant No. 2 is given to deposit the amount. As a