Inherent power to restrain a parallel suit survives Section 10 where foreign proceedings are oppressive and abusive.

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exhaust the High Court's power to restrain a party from prosecuting a previously instituted suit in another court. The Calcutta High Court recognised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 to act in personam by injunction where necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. On the facts, the balance of convenience favoured Calcutta because the transactions, documents, and witnesses were centred there, and the Gujranwala suit was found to be maliciously oppressive. An injunction was granted restraining the defendant from proceeding with that suit pending disposal of the Calcutta suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, notwithstanding Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court had power to restrain a party from prosecuting a previously instituted suit in another court on grounds of convenience and to prevent abuse of process; (ii) Whether, on the facts, an injunction should be granted restraining the defendant from proceeding with the Gujranwala suit.

Issue (i): Whether, notwithstanding Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court had power to restrain a party from prosecuting a previously instituted suit in another court on grounds of convenience and to prevent abuse of process.

Analysis: The mandatory language of Section 10 did not exhaust the Court's powers. The Court relied on its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on established authority recognising that the High Court may act in personam by injunction to prevent abuse of its process and secure the ends of justice. The existence of a previously instituted suit in another court did not bar such relief where the circumstances showed hardship, inconvenience, and misuse of litigation tactics.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had power to restrain the party from proceeding with the suit in another court despite Section 10.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, an injunction should be granted restraining the defendant from proceeding with the Gujranwala suit.

Analysis: The transactions and evidence were centred in Calcutta, the plaintiff carried on business there, most witnesses and documents were there, and the Gujranwala proceeding was found to have been instituted maliciously to harass and inconvenience the plaintiff. The balance of convenience lay wholly in favour of trial in Calcutta, and allowing the foreign suit to continue would amount to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The Court granted the injunction and restrained the defendant from proceeding with the Gujranwala suit pending disposal of the Calcutta suit.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld its power to intervene by injunction to prevent oppressive and vexatious litigation and, applying that power, protected the Calcutta proceedings while rejecting the request to stay them under Section 10.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not exclude the High Court's inherent power to restrain, by injunction operating in personam, proceedings in another court where necessary to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.

---