Ordinary meaning of "deliver" and territorial limits under Section 45 shaped the outcome on yarn control relief.

Delivery of yarn to outside handloom weavers was held to fall within Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945 because the term "deliver" was given its ordinary meaning of handing over possession, including delivery to a bailee, and the clause was read broadly to advance controlled distribution. However, relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was unavailable where the acts complained of and the requested seizure and restoration lay outside the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The result was that the control order covered the delivery, but the application could not be maintained for want of territorial competence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delivery of yarn to outside handloom weavers for conversion into cloth fell within Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945. (ii) Whether the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was maintainable when the relief sought related to acts outside the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether delivery of yarn to outside handloom weavers for conversion into cloth fell within Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945.

Analysis: The word "deliver" was not defined in the Control Order and had to bear its ordinary meaning. In that sense it meant handing over possession, which includes delivery to a bailee. The scheme and object of Clause 18B, namely proper distribution of cloth or yarn, required a broad construction; the clause was not confined to sales or transfers of title, and it extended to delivery to outside weavers.

Conclusion: The delivery of yarn to outside handloom weavers was within Clause 18B(1)(b), and the answer to this issue was in the affirmative.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was maintainable when the relief sought related to acts outside the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 45 confined the High Court's power to requiring specific acts to be done or forbborne within the local limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The relief sought concerned seizure and restoration of yarn at Madura and Rajapalayam, which were outside those limits. Since the acts complained of and the relief prayed for related to matters outside the territorial limits, the application could not be entertained under Section 45.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and this issue was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although the control order covered delivery to outside weavers, the requested relief could not be granted under Section 45 owing to lack of territorial competence.

Ratio Decidendi: A word in a control order not specially defined must be given its ordinary meaning, and a writ-type remedy under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 cannot be granted for acts and reliefs lying outside the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

---