Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Mungle Chand vs Gopal Ram on 6 August, 1906
(b) It is contended that the learned judge of this Court had no jurisdiction to issue any injunction against Ram Prasad Singh as the latter does not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. On the abstract question we were referred to two decisions of the Calcutta High Court, one on each side; Mungle Chand v. Gopal Ram (1906) I.L.R. 34 Calc.
Vulcan Iron Works vs Bishumbhur Prosad on 7 December, 1908
101, affirming the existence of such jurisdiction, and Vulcan Iron Works v. Bishumbhur Prosad (1908) I.L.R. 36 Calc. 233, denying the same. The present case, however, seems to us a clear one. Ram Prasad Singh was an appellant before this Court, and he had himself invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to take interim proceedings pending the decision of his appeal. The orders passed on the 9th of December, 1918, must be considered as a whole; so considered their effect is clear. Ram Prasad Singh got a portion of what he wanted; the Benares Bank was restrained from actually bringing to sale any of his property pending the decision of his first appeal from order. He got this subject to a condition, namely, that he should not alienate certain property in the meantime. It was clearly within the jurisdiction of this Court to impose such a condition. It has been suggested that, in any case, no procedure is provided for punishing any breach of the condition so imposed. This argument turns in part on the interpretation to be put on Order XXXIX, Rule 2, Clause (3), of the Code of Civil Procedure. The drafting of the rule is a little clumsy, because it has followed mechanically the arrangement of sections in the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882; but we are satisfied that the words "in case of disobedience" are wide enough to cover breaches of injunctions issued under Order XXXIX, rule (1), for which breaches no penalty is elsewhere provided. In any case this Court has unquestionably the power to punish contempt of its own orders. As regards the precise mode of execution of the order for imprisonment in the civil jail that point may be considered when it arises. We should prefer to affirm the order without committing ourselves to the mode of execution suggested in the order under appeal. The provisions of Sections 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Section 16 of Act No. V of 1871, require consideration. It may be that the proper mode of execution is for this Court to cause Ram Prasad Singh to be arrested and then to commit him to the civil jail in this place. This question is at present immaterial.
Section 136 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1