Civil court restraint on parallel proceedings found beyond jurisdiction; appellate challenge to interlocutory order held maintainable.

A civil court exercising original jurisdiction cannot restrain parties from pursuing proceedings before other competent criminal courts or statutory fora, including proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, contempt, NCLT and execution proceedings; those matters must be decided by the forum where they are pending. The restraint order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and was set aside. The preliminary objection to maintainability was also rejected because the impugned interlocutory order was treated as legally erroneous and fit for appellate scrutiny. The appeal succeeded, and the suit was left to continue before the Single Judge in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable against the interlocutory order of the Single Judge; (ii) Whether a civil court, while dealing with the suit, could restrain the parties from pursuing other coercive proceedings, including proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contempt proceedings, NCLT proceedings and execution proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable against the interlocutory order of the Single Judge.

Analysis: The objection that the appeal was not maintainable because it arose from an interim order was rejected. The challenged portion of the order was treated as one that was ex facie legally erroneous and capable of appellate scrutiny under the governing principles applicable to appeals from orders passed on the original side.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection on maintainability was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a civil court, while dealing with the suit, could restrain the parties from pursuing other coercive proceedings, including proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contempt proceedings, NCLT proceedings and execution proceedings.

Analysis: A civil court exercising original jurisdiction was held to be confined to the limits of the procedural law and the governing High Court Act, and could not determine or curtail the powers of criminal courts or other adjudicatory fora. Questions arising in pending proceedings before the magistrate, the NCLT, contempt jurisdiction or execution had to be decided by those fora themselves on the basis of the material placed before them. The order of restraint was therefore beyond jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The restraint on continuation of the other proceedings was held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned restraint on parallel proceedings was removed, and the suit proceedings were left to continue before the Single Judge in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court cannot, in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, restrain parties from pursuing proceedings before other competent criminal courts or statutory fora; such questions must be decided by the forum in which those proceedings are pending.

---