Skip to content


Kothalanka Surya Kameswara Rao Vs. Ajjarapu Lakshminarayana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 376 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad347; (1953)2MLJ549
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rule 2
AppellantKothalanka Surya Kameswara Rao
RespondentAjjarapu Lakshminarayana
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Subramaniam, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG. Chandrasekhara Sastry, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 570 and on his failure he would be arrested and committed to civil prison for detention for a period of one month......according to him even though there was an injunction order preventing him from dealing with the paddy, he delivered the same three days later to the mill and received the price of rs. 570. the lower court was inclined to hold that he had no justification to do so and directed him to deposit into court the sum of rs. 570 and on his failure he would be arrested and committed to civil prison for detention for a period of one month. the appellant after depositing the money has preferred the appeal objecting to the order of the lower court directing the deposit of rs. 570.2. we do not see any reason why the order of the lower court should not be upheld. an order of injunction issued by a civil court directing a party to refrain from doing a thing must certainly have precedence over any.....
Judgment:

Govinda Menon, J.

1. The appellant was restrained by an injunction not to deal with the proceeds of the harvesting of certain crops which he had harvested but before he received the order the Firka Supply Officer had already directed him to deliver the paddy to a mill at Kothapeta which he could not disobey. Therefore) according to him even though there was an injunction order preventing him from dealing with the paddy, he delivered the same three days later to the mill and received the price of Rs. 570. The lower court was inclined to hold that he had no justification to do so and directed him to deposit into court the sum of Rs. 570 and on his failure he would be arrested and committed to civil prison for detention for a period of one month. The appellant after depositing the money has preferred the appeal objecting to the order of the lower court directing the deposit of Rs. 570.

2. We do not see any reason why the order of the lower court should not be upheld. An order of injunction issued by a civil court directing a party to refrain from doing a thing must certainly have precedence over any executive order passed by a Firka Supply Officer or even for the matter of that the executive head of the district. The appellant should not have delivered the paddy to the mill and received the proceeds after the injunction order was served on him. His action was certainly in contempt of court and the learned Judge, took a lenient view in directing him to deposit the money, and to commit him to prison only in default of doing so. Hereafter it is open to him to contend that the order of injunction should not have been issued and that he is entitled to the proceeds. The fact that an injunction has been issued would not prevent him from sustaining his claim regarding the paddy. But his having delivered the same to the mill in contravention of the order of court is certainly contempt.

3. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //