Court upholds injunction, citing inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process & serve justice. Defendant's jurisdiction argument dismissed.

The Court upheld the injunction issued by the lower court, stating that while it did not strictly fall under Order 39, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and serve justice. The defendant's argument that the injunction exceeded jurisdiction was dismissed, as the parties had agreed to resolve disputes in Meerut, making the Ambala suit a breach of contract. The Court found the defendant's claim of not noticing the agreement clause implausible, as it was prominently displayed. The revision application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction to grant injunction under Order 39 read with Section 94, Civil P.C.

The judgment involves an application for revision by the defendant, a firm carrying on business in Punjab, against an order of injunction issued by the Court below. The plaintiff, a firm from Meerut, filed a suit for the recovery of money against the defendant regarding forward contracts in grain. The defendant also filed a suit in Ambala related to the same transactions. The Court below refused to stay the Meerut suit and issued an injunction against the defendant from proceeding with the Ambala suit, citing an agreement between the parties to resolve disputes in Meerut. The defendant challenged the injunction, arguing that it exceeded the jurisdiction under Order 39 read with Section 94, Civil P.C. The plaintiff contended that the injunction was necessary to prevent an abuse of the court process and further the ends of justice.

The Court held that while the specific injunction issued did not fall within the scope of Order 39, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of court process and serve justice. Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized that the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive and that Courts can act ex debito justitia to ensure real and substantial justice. The Court also noted that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes in Meerut, making the Ambala suit a breach of contract. The Court found that the defendant's claim of not reading the agreement clause was not credible, as the clause was prominently displayed on the order forms. Therefore, the Court upheld the injunction, stating that the Court below was justified in issuing it to prevent a breach of contract. The application for revision was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

---