Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The State of Biha is the appellant in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate granted by the High Court of Patna under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution.

2. The principle point of law raised for decision in the appeal is whether a State is liable to be proceeded against under O. 39, R. 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it wilfully disobeys an order of temporary injunction passes economic against it.

3. There is little controversy regarding the facts, but they have to be set out to appreciate some of the matters debated before us.

4. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (which we shall refer to, as the Act) which provided for the transference to the State of the interest of proprietors and tenure-holders in estates within the State, received the assent of the President on September 11, 1950 and was published in the Bihar Gazettee on September 25, 1950. Thereupon Rani Sonabati Kumari the respondent, who was the proprietres of the Ghatwali Estate of Handwa situated within the State instituted against the State of Bihar, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Dumka on the 20th November 1950, Title Suit 40 of 1950, inter alia a declaration that the Act was ultra vires of the Bihar Legislature and was therefore "illegal, void, unconstitutional and inoperative" and that the defendant had "no right to issue any notification under the said Act or to take possession or otherwise meddle or interfere with the management of the estate in suit" and for a permanent injunction "restraining the defendant its officers, servants, employees and agents from issuing any notification under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, in respect of the plaintiff s estate" and also "from taking possession of the said estate and from meddling or interfering in any way with the management thereof."

5. Along with the plaint, the respondent filed a petition for a temporary injunction in which the prayer ran :

"It is therefore prayed that a temporary injunction be issued against the defendant, its officers, employees, servants or agents restraining them from issuing any notification with regard to the plaintiff s estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act XXX of 1950) and from meddling or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff to the properties in suit, till the disposal of this suit".

6. The Court issued an ex parte adinterim injunction presumably in terms of the prayer in the petition, and directed notice of the petition to be served on the State of Bihar who filed their counter-affidavit on December 9, 1950, opposing the grant of any interim injunction and praying that the petition be dismissed with costs. The petition was heard in the presence of both the parties on March 19, 1951, and the Subordinate Judge made the ad interim injunction absolute and the order went on to add "and it is ordered that the defendant shall not issue any notification for taking over possession of the suit properties under the Land Reforms Act and shall not interfere with or disturb in any manner the plaintiff s possession over these properties under any of the provision of the aforesaid Act until this suit is finally disposed of by this Court". The order was appealable under O. 43, R. (1) (r) of the Code but the State preferred no appeal and so it became final.

7. On May 17, 1952, an application was filed by the State for vacating the order, on the ground that the validity of the Act had been upheld by this Court in another case involving the same points and that thereafter the plaintiff had no prima facie case to sustain in injunction. Before however this application invoking the powers of the Court under O. 39, R. 4 of the Code came on for hearing - (it was actually heard on May 30, 1952, when it reserved it for orders to be pronounced on June 2, 1952) the State of Bihar issued on May 19, 1952, a notification under S. 3(1) of the Act declaring that the Handwa Raj Estate belonging to the respondent, had passed to and becam