Goswami Laloo Lal Sharma vs Radhey Lal Goswami and Others

This is application to stay the proceedings instituted pending in the Court of the District Judge of Mathura for the grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the estate of one Mohan Lal. The applicant in that Court is Manu Lal, son of Kishori Lal, brother of Mohan Lal. The opposite parties in that case, are Laloo Lal, son of Mohan Lal, Radhey Lal Goswami and others, sons of the daughter of Mohan Lal. Previous to the institution of the proceedings in the Mathura Court, Laloo Lal had applied to the District Judge of Patna for the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of his father Mohan Lal. The application was opposed by the aforesaid Goswamis, the sons of Mohan Lal''s daughter. Manu Lal was also made a party and entered appearance, but afterwards ceased to take any interest in the proceedings. That application was made on the 17th September 1923 and terminated in the final order of the District Judge passed on the 14th June 1924, by which the application of Manu Lal was refused. Against that order Manu Lal has appealed to this Court, and has now applied for an ad interim stay of proceedings in the Court at Mathura in the United Provinces, pending the disposal of the appeal here.

On the 7th of August 1924 an order for ad interim stay of the proceedings before the District Judge of Mathura was made by this Court pending the disposal of the present application. Now the applicant has come up before us for determination as to whether the ad interim injunction should continue pending the disposal of the appeal or it should be withdrawn.

The Goswamis, that is, the daughter''s sons of Mohan Lal, have appeared through Mr. Jayaswal. He supports the application of Laloo Lal. Manu Lal, who is the applicant in the Mathura Court for the grant of Letters of Administration to him, however, opposes this application. He contends that the application should be made in th the Court of the District Judge of Mathura for stay of proceedings u/s 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that no injunction should be issued against him restraining him from proceeding with his application in the Mathura Court. It is admitted on all hands that the point at issue, both in the appeal pending before us and in the proceedings in the Mathura Court, are one and the same The proceedings out of which the appeal to this Court has arisen was started long before the application made by Manu Lal in the Mathura Court. Upon these admitted facts the suit at Mathura cannot proceed and the trial of that suit is barred by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true than an application for stay of proceedings u/s 10 of the Code should have been made in the Mathura Court. Upon the facts stated by the parties an application for the grant of Letters of Administration could be instituted either at Patna or at Mathura and as a matter of fact the proceedings have been taken in both the Courts. This circumstance brings the case within Section 22 of the Code read with Section 23, and the Court can determine in which of the two Courts the proceedings shall proceed. Manu Lal was made a party in the proceedings before the District Judge of Patna and he entered appearance. No objection was, however, made by him as regards the proceedings instituted in the Patna Court or that those proceedings should have been stayed. He quietly went to Mathura and instituted a fresh proceeding and allowed the proceeding at Patna to continue and to be dealt with and determined by the District Judge of Patna. He, therefore, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Patna Court. Having thus submitted to the jurisdiction of the Patna Court he cannot frustrate the appeal in this Court by simultaneously going on with his proceedings in the Mathura Court. It is, therefore, to my mind, obvious that the proceedings at Mathura should not go on until the disposal of the litigation here.

The Code has carefully avoided the chance of any clash in the decision of two Courts either in the same High Court or in different High Courts with respect to the same point at issue arising between the same parties. When the suits and proceedings are in the Courts subordinate to the same High Court the matter does not present any difficulty and can be effectively dealt with by that High Court. Difficulty, however, is felt in dealing with such matters when they are pending in Courts subordinate to two High Courts, for one High Court has no control over the Courts subordinate to another High Court. To meet these difficulties the Code has made provision in two sections, viz. Sections 10 and 22. These express provisions are further fortified by the power vested in the Court for issuing injunctions against persons who are either within the jurisdiction of the Court or have submitted to its jurisdiction. Therefore the provisions contained in Sections 10 and 22 are supplemented by those contained in Order 39 relating to injunctions and to those which lie in the inherent power of the Court. It is certain that in the circumstances of the case the proceedings in the Mathura Court should not go on and be stayed.

The question of procedure then, to my mind, will not at all stand in dealing with the matter. Whereas u/s 10 the party should apply to the Court in which the subsequent suit or proceeding is instituted u/s 22 this Court has jurisdiction to make an order that the appeal in this Court shall proceed. This order u/s 22 has the effect of stopping the proceedings in the Mathura Court. This has been the view arrived at by me in the case of Firm Ram Kumar Sheochand Rai v. Firm Tula Ram Nathu Ram AIR (1920) Pat 138, and, although this Court will not issue any injunction to Courts subordinate to another High Court, yet the order passed by this Court u/s 22 is final; and it will not be open to any other Court in India to dispute it and to allow suits and proceedings to proceed in any other Court than that in which this Court directs. Again, although the Court will not issue any injunction against a person not within its jurisdiction, yet when that person has submitted to the jurisdiction, the Court will in the ends of justice restrain that party from doing anything which it considers is improper and will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The reason why an injunction should not issue against a person residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court is that an injunction on a person if disobeyed cannot in that circumstance be enforced, but a party to a proceeding pending in this Court or in Courts subordinate to this Court is amenable to this Court. Manu Lal was a party in the Court below and entered appearance and did not object to the jurisdiction of that Court and therefore he made himself liable in personam to this Court, vide Amar Kumar Mukherjee v. B. Coventry AIR (1925) Pat 710. Again, he is a respondent in this Court and has entered appearance. Therefore an injunction can issue against him restraining him from proceeding with the suit in the Mathura Court.

It has, however, been contended that an injunction against Manu Lal will not at all interfere with the Mathura Court and that Court in spite of such an injunction can continue the proceedings in that Court. That contingency may not be apprehended. So long as Manu Lal is personally responsible to this Court an injunction against him, restraining him from doing any act, is a sufficient check upon any proceeding being adopted by him in the Mathura Court.

The case, we are told, is not a complicated one, nor is it a heavy case. Most of the papers are in English and will not be required to be translated. The appellant is ready to deposit the printing costs which has now been estimated by the office for printing the paper-book. Therefore the preparation of the paper book can be expedited and so also the hearing of the appeal. The ad interim order passed by this Court on 7th August 1924 should, therefore, continue until the disposal of the appeal the hearing of which is directed to be expedited. On behalf of Manu Lal an undertaking has been given that he will not proceed with the proceeding in the Mathura Court if the hearing in this Court is expedited. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.