JOSEPH Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for adjudication is whether the order of temporary injunction granted by the lower courts can be sustained. S. 94 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the court may, if it is so prescribed, grant a temporary injunction. 0. 39 R. 1 and 2 prescribe when temporary injunctions may be granted. R. 1 lays down that where in any suit it is proved that any property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold or delivered in execution of a decree, or that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors, the court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, "or make such other order for staying or preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or dispossession of the property as the court thinks fit, until the suit is disposed of or until further orders. R. 2 provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after the judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right, and the court may by order grant such injunction. THEse are the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding temporary injunctions. S. 94 makes it clear beyond doubt that a temporary injunction may be issued, if it is so prescribed; which means, if it is prescribed by the Rules. That means that the powers of the court to issue temporary injunctions must be found within the four corners of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely within R. 1 and 2 of 0. 39.

(2.) IN T. C. Kunhukuttan Nair v. Sibakumaran (1958 KLT. 385) a Division Bench of this Court took the aforesaid view and observed that whatever might be the inherent powers of the Chartered High Courts in such cases, so far as the other courts were concerned, the inherent power under S. 151 of the Code to make such orders as might be necessary to meet the ends of justice could not be invoked to grant temporary injunction in oases, where the conditions laid down in R. 1 and 2 of 0. 39 did not obtain. This view of pur High Court is amply supported by decisions of other High Courts, for example, see Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu , Mudali (AIR. 1938 M. 190), Kuppammal v. Seetharama Aiyer (AIR. 1948 M. 528), K. Nagabhushana Reddy v. K. V. Srinivasa Reddy (AIR. 1951 M. 279), subramanian v. Seetarama Aiyar (AIR. 1949 M. 104), Hemant Kumar v. Ayodhya Prasad (AIR. 1957 M. B. 95), Ram Sharup v. Ram Prasad (AIR. 1953 M. B. 154) and Abdul Hamid Khan v. Tridip Kumar Chanda (AIR. 1953 Assam 104 ).

(3.) THE result is the order of the lower courts has to be set aside. THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of temporary injunction is sot aside. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout. Allowed.