Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and Section 47 (1) "All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit".

10. In Sachi Prasad v. Amarnalh Roy, ILR 46 Cal 103: (AIR 1919 Cal 674), Richardson, J. said ;

"Clause (1) of Rule 32 clearly applies to injunctions both mandatory and prohibitory. In the present Code the words 'for an injunction' take the place in the old Code of the words 'for the performance or abstension from any other particular act'. I can see no reason why Clause (5) should be limited to mandatory injunctions".

The other Judge who was a party to the order --Beachcroft, J.--contented himself by saying :

"I express no opinion whether Order XXI. Rule 32(5} applies to prohibitory as well as to mandatory injunctions".

11. In Hem Chandra v. Narendra Nath, AIR 11934 Cal 402, Mukherji, J. (with whom Chose, J., agreed) said :

"1 am not inclined to agree in the view expressed by Richardson, J., (concurrence in which was withheld by Beachcroft, J.) in ILR 46 Cal 103: (AIR 919 Cal 674), that Clause 5, Order 21, R, 32 applied to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. With all deference to the learned Judge I am of opinion that notwithstanding that the word 'injunction' is used in Clause 5 without any qualification or restriction, that clause cannot be read as embracing prohibitory injunction";
"With all due respect, the much dissented dictum of Richardson, J. does not appeal to us. The words of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 clearly indicate that they are apposite only to mandatory injunctions and not to prohibitory injunctions".

14. We are in respectful agreement with this view. The words 'act required to be done' in the sub-rule definitely indicate that it applies only to mandatory injunctions and we must hold that the suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 47 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as contended by the appellants before us.