Amitabh Banerji - (1.) THIS revision raises a patent question of jurisdiction although the point now urged in this Court was not raised before the Court below.
(2.) A proceeding under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was converted into a suit and later the proceedings were transferred from the Court of Civil Judge. Gyanpur to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Gyanpur. An application for grant of injunction against the defendants applicants was, however, granted by the Civil Judge, Gyanpur even though the original suit stood transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Gyanpur. The contention of the revisionists was that the Court of Civil Judge, Gyanpur had no jurisdiction whatsover to entertain or grant the injunction when the suit itself had been transferred and was pending in another Court. This objection was however, mot taken in the Court below and has been raised for the first time in this Court. On behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party it was urged that there was no patent lack of jurisdiction but only a latent lack of jurisdiction and therefore, there was no question of interference with the order passed by the Court below. It was further urged that it was Permissible under Section 41 of the Act to pass orders independent of the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Since the firm stood dissolved it was in the interest of justice that the defendants were restrained from operating the cold storage. In other words, the contention was that the application for injunction was maintainable independent of the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act.
(3.) THUS the main question is whether there was a patent lack of jurisdiction in the Court to pass the impugned order.;