S. Swamidass vs Robert Bruce and Others

Abdul Hadi, J.—This civil revision petition is against the order dated 23.12.1989 in 1.A.652 of 1989 (in the Transfer Petition T.C.P.

No.170 of 1989) on the file of the District Court, Nagarcoil, refusing to given extension of interim injunction earlier granted in I.A.1121 of 1989 of

O.S.676 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kizhithurai, till the disposal of the said I.A.1121 of l989.

The said I. A.652 of 1989 has been filed u/s 151, C.P.C.O.S.676 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner against six person, including the first

defendant-Bishop and the second defendant C.S.I. Church Mangarai, represented by the third defendant-Pastor, for permanent injunction

restraining the first defendant from dissolving the ad hoc committee of Mangarai C.S.I. Church appointed on 11.2.1988 until the election to the

said Church takes place. In the said suit, in I. A. 1034 of 1989 similar temporary injunction was granted on 24.10.1989 and is still in force.

However, it appears on 21.10.1989 itself the Church Board has appointed a new ad hoc committee consisting of the present respondents for

holding election to the said Mangarai Church, this is seen from the letter dated 2.11.1989 of the Church Board to one of the respondent herein.

So, the petitioner herein filed I.A. 1120 of 1989 in the said suit for impleading the said new ad hoc committee members respondents herein as

defendants 7 to 10 in the suit, and I.A.No.1 121 of 1989 for interim injunction restraining the said proposed defendants 7 to 10 from interfering

with the above said existing ad hoc committee (who are some of the defendants in the suit) in conducting the election for the said Church

committee. The said interim injunction was given on 3.11.1989 and it was also extended on 27.11.1989 to be in force till 30.11.1989. It is

represented by the counsel for the petitioner that arguments on both sides were heard in the said I. A. and on 27.11.1989 the said I.A. 1121 of

1989 was posted to 30.11.1989 for reply arguments by the petitioner''s counsel. The other I.A.No. 1130 of 1989 for impleading was also

pending.

While so, on 29.11.1989 just one day prior on 30.11.1989 the abovesaid O.P.170 of 1989 has been filed by the said proposed parties in the

District Court, Nagarcoil for transfer of the above suit and certain other suits to another Court and the said proposed parties also obtained stay of

further proceedings in O.S.676 of 1989. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed the present I.A.652 of 1989 in the said T.O.P. for the above

referred extension of the said interim injunction given in I.A.I 121 of 1989. Against the refusal to the said extension, the present revision petition

has been filed.

The only ground on which the Court below was refused extension is that no injunction could be granted against the persons who are not parties

to the suit, relying on the passage, ""an injunction can be issued only against a party to the suit and not against either a Court or a stranger to the suit,

found in Chitaley''s ""Civil Procedure Code"", 9th Edn. 4th volume page 618. The Court below, without going in to the merits, refused to grant the

extension of injunction on the sole technical ground that the respondents had not yet become parties of the suit, but only a petition was pending for

impleading them.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the abovesaid technical objection was erroneous and that further the Court below over-

looked the fact that the transfer petition was filed just to prevent the Trial Court from passing the final orders in LA.No.1 121 of 1989 and the fact

that the first defendant, despite the abovesaid earlier injunction granted on 24.10.1989 in LA. 1034 of 1989 violated it by appointing a new ad hoc

committee consisting of the respondents herein. With reference to the above-said technical objections he pointed out that the extension sought for

was under Section, 151, C.P.C. and that the Court always has got inherent powers to grant injunction even where the circumstances were not

covered by Order 39, Rule 1 or 2 , C.P.C. under which provision alone, if at all, injunction could be granted only against any of the parties to the

suit. Further, he cited the following passage from Halsbury''s laws of England, 4th Edn. Volume 24, paragraph 1045: -

Where a person was threatening to aid and abet the defendant in committing a breach of an injunction, the Court granted an injunction restraining

him personally from so doing, without his being made a party

(emphasis is mine)

He also cited the decision in Nasir Ahmed Vs. Lutf Ahmed and Others, . There, in a pending suit, for dissolution of partnership, a receiver was

appointed. The partnership firm had earlier leased out the firm''s factory to a lessee. The said lessee did not pay the rent and the Court gave an

injunction against the lessee prevention him from making withdrawal of money from his Bank. The lessees contended that the said injunction against

him was without jurisdiction. In such a situation it was held that the Court was competent to pass the said order against the lessee. The leaned

counsel also drew my attention to the passage in Woodroffe''s ""The law relating to Injunction 6th Ed. (1988) page 27 to the effect that injunction

could be passed also against persons who are within the reach of the Court even though they may not be parties. Further, the learned counsel also

submitted that though respondents had not yet been made parties there is a petition pending for making them parties and when it is ordered it

would relate back to the date of its filing viz., 3.11.1989 and so there can be no impediment in passing an injunction against them, while the said I.

A. 1129 of 1989 for impleading them is pending. There is considerable force in the argument of the said counsel. I also find that it has been held in

Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal and others, AIR 1962 S.C.526 that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances

which are not covered be the provisions of Order 39, C.P.C. if the Court is of opinion that interest of justice requires the issue of such injunctions.

Further, if at all only under 0.39 Rules 1 or 2, C.P.C. it can be said that injunction cannot be granted against a person, who is not a party to the

suit. But, even there, I find the following passage in the Commentary under 0.39 Rule 1 of Mullah''s C.P.C. 13th Edn. Volume-II page 1515: -

No injunction can be granted under this Rule against a person ho is not a party to the suit. But this Rule is subject to certain exceptions, e.g.

injunction can be given against a purchase under the decree, against a tenant who had taken a lease from the receiver appointed by the Court.

Any way the respondents should have waited for the passing of the final decree in I.A.I 121 of 1989 on 30.11.1989, and thereafter if necessary

could have filed the abovesaid transfer petition. If they had done so, all these subsequent complications could have been avoided. In this

connection, I even wanted to see a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition to find out whether in the said affidavit, the

respondents, have disclosed the orders passed in the said I.A. 1121 of 1989, and the stage at which it stood then. But none of the counsel before

me could provide the said copy. At any rate, the filing of I.A.652 of 1989 by the petitioner herein became necessary only because of the

abovesaid transfer petition and the grant of stay of further proceeding in the suit by the District Court on 29.11.1989, while the Trial Court had

granted injunction upto 30.11.1989 and had posted the relevant LA. for passing final orders relating to the injunction granted, to 30.11.1989. In

such a situation, the District Court should have necessarily considered I.A.652 of 1989, for extension of the said injunction, on merits and ought

not to have dismissed it on the abovesaid technical ground which cannot be sustained in law.

No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that in a similar action initiated by another person against the above said church

authorities for similar reliefs, the Court has refused any such reliefs on the ground that the ad hoc committee appointed on 11.2.1988 was not

functioning and that the said ruling was also confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. 2348 of 1989. Further, he also contended that even before

24.10.1989 when the original injunction was given against the first defendant-Bishop of the Church in question, the Church Board had already

appointed a new ad hoc committee on 21.10.1989, itself and that hence the order of injunction dated 24.10.1989, that too, against the first

defendant and not against the Church-Board will have no effect and that therefore no question of violation of the order dated 24.10.1989 would

arise. But, I need not go into these questions relating to the merits, Since I find that the technical ground, on which the District Court has refused

extension of injunction, is not sustainable in law. I allow this civil revision petition, set aside the orders of the learned District Judge and remit the

matter back to him for fresh disposal on merits, allowing both the parties to make their respective contentions before him.The learned District

Judge, in view of the urgency is directed to dispose of the said I.A. within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

In view of the above said order passed in the main Civil Revision Petition interim injunction prayed for in C.M.P. 568 of 1990 is granted until

final orders are passed in I.A.652 of 1989 by the District Court, Nagarcoil.