UNNAMALAI ACHI Vs. UMAYAL ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Unnamalai Achi filed a suit Original Suit No. 44 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devokattai, againstone Murugappa Chetty for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,560 on the basis that she had deposited a sum of Rs 21,136-50 with Murugappa Chetty repayable with compound interest. Murugappa Chetty died during the suit and defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as his legal representatives. Defendants 3 and 4 allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte. The other two merely put the plaintiff to proof of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Appeal Suit No. 416 of 1967 has been preferred by the plaintiff Unnamalai Achi against the four legal resentatives.

(2.) IN the meantime, one Ramaswami Chetty who obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 3 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai against the said Murugappa Chetty for a sum of over Rs. 25,000 on 25th January, 1965, filed Execution Petition No. 86 of 1965 for recovery of the amount by sale of the house of Murugappa Chetty in Palangudi in Ramanathapuram District.

(3.) THE point need not be laboured further because Sri V.V. Raghavan did not seriously contend that he could invoke the provisions of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. But he urged that he could invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for issuing the injunction against Ramaswami Chetty. That provision says:Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.In support of this contention, Sri V.V. Raghavan relies on the majority decision of the Supreme Court in Manoharlal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1962) 1 S.C.R. (Supp.) 450. In that case, their Lordships point out that some High Courts have taken the view that in the matter of injunction, because of Section 94 (c), interim injunction could be granted by the Court only within the terms of Order 39, but that other High Courts have taken the view that an injunction could be granted in proper cases under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code also. THEir Lordships held that in suitable cases injunction could be issued under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code.