- (1.) THIS was a rule directed against an order dated the 30th November, 1950, passed by Mr. Ram lal, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi.
(2.) THE facts of the case ar that Firm Phool Chand Milap Chand filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 27,517/11/9 against Firm Lachhman Das Mul Chand through Shiv Charan Lal and Shiv charan Lal (sic) on the 2nd February, 1950. On the 30th October, 1950, Shiv Charan Lal filed a suit for accounts in the Agra Court making Firm Phool Chand Milap Chand a defendant in the suit. On the 7th November, 1950, the learned. Judge at Agra issued an injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from proceeding with the suit. The order and the grounds for the order have not been placed before this Court. On the 30th November, 1950, the parties appeared before the Court in Delhi and the learned Judge ordered that the order of the Agra Court did not bind him and decided to proceed with the suit. Against this order a revision was brought to this Court and rule was issued on the 24th April, 1951, by me.
(3.) MR. Daya Krishan Mahajan has submitted that it was a proper order which his client had obtained from the Agra Court and therefore it was not open to the Court at Delhi to proceed with the trial and thus be a party to the breach of the order of injunction passed by the Agra Court. In support of his submission that a proper order was passed by the Judge in Agra, ha has relied, firstly, on 'lakhmiram Kevalbam v. Poonamchand Pitambar', 45 Bom. 550. There Lakhmiram kevalram had applied for insolvency in the Bombay High Court and Poonamchand Pitamber was one of the opposing creditors. After the discharge of Lakhmiram Kevalram, Poonamchand pitamber brought a suit against Lakhmiram Kevalram in the Court of Sirohi for his debt and obtained a decree for Rs. 2,834/4/ -. Lakhmiram Kevalram then obtained a rule from the insolvency Court at Bombay calling upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be restrained from proceeding with the suit filed in the Sirohi Court and from executing the decree. Poonamchand Pitamber contended that Lakhmiram Kevalram had property in Sirohi State which the State refused to hand over to the Official Assignee in Bombay and therefore the Bombay court had no jurisdiction to restrain the respondent from taking proceedings in the State to recover his debt. It was held by the Appeal Court of the Bombay High Court chat if Lakhmiram. Keyalram had assets in Sirohi state which the Official Assignee was unable to get hold of poonam-chand. Pitamber should not be restrained from taking proceedings in that State to recover his debt. In considering the question of injunction the Chief Justice, Sir Norman maclecd, said: "generally speaking, it would certainly be contrary to all ideas of equity that party trading and incurring debts in Bombay, and having property in foreign territory, which the Official Assignee could not get hold of, should be able to completely get rid of all his liabilities as regards his creditors inside British India and then proceed to enjoy his property outside British India, free from all those liabilities. " He also referred to 'carron Iron Co. v. Maclaeen', (1855) 5 HLC 416, where at p. 436 it is said: "the Court acts in personam, and will not suffer any one within its reach to do what is contrary to its notions of equity, namely because the act to be done may be, in point of locality, beyond its jurisdiction. " But the learned Chief Justice refused to grant the injunction as Poonamchand Pitamber was outside the jurisdiction of the Court. I cannot see how this judgment holds this submission of counsel.;