Advocates Appeared:
SRI.VASANTH V. FERNANDES A/W SRI R.GUNASHEKAR, ADV.
SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA AND SRI HARISH N.R., ADVS. FOR R3; R1 & R2 – NOTICE ISSUED)
SRI KENCHEGOWDA, ADV.
SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R1; R2 TO R13 – NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:27/6/2014

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

1. Scope of Section 94(c) and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC:
   The court can grant a temporary injunction under Section 94(c) of CPC only if it is prescribed by the rules, specifically Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. Without satisfying these rules, the court cannot grant such relief (!) (!) .
   

2. Inherent Powers of the Court:
   In cases where the specific provisions of Order 39 do not apply, the court has inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including injunctions, to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. However, this power is limited by the provisions of the CPC and should not conflict with express statutory rules (!) (!) .
   

3. Distinction Between Reliefs Available to Plaintiffs and Defendants:
   The relief under Order 39, Rule 1(b) and (c) is exclusively available to plaintiffs. Defendants cannot maintain applications under these clauses in a suit initiated by the plaintiff. Instead, they may seek separate relief through a separate suit. The application under Order 39, Rule 1(a) can be filed by either party (!) (!) .
   

4. Legal Interpretation of "Any Party" and "Threat":
   The language of the rules indicates that applications for temporary injunction under clauses (b) and (c) are only available to the party threatened by the act (e.g., dispossession or damage), typically the plaintiff. The defendant cannot invoke these clauses against the plaintiff in the same suit (!) (!) .
   

5. Exercise of Inherent Powers in Absence of Specific Provision:
   The court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions in circumstances not explicitly covered by Order 39 if such relief is necessary for justice. Nonetheless, legislative intent and statutory provisions must be respected, and inherent powers should not override specific legal provisions (!) (!) .

6. Cause of Action and Application for Injunction:
   An application for injunction by a defendant based on the same cause of action as the plaintiff is generally not permissible under Order 39. The rules do not explicitly recognize "cause of action" as a basis for such applications, and the law restricts defendants from seeking injunctions against the plaintiff in the same suit on the same cause of action (!) (!) .

7. Restrictions on Exercise of Inherent Powers:
   While the court has inherent jurisdiction, its exercise is constrained by the explicit provisions of the CPC. The court must ensure that such powers are exercised in a manner consistent with legislative intent and not in conflict with specific statutory rules (!) (!) .

8. Procedural and Jurisdictional Limitations:
   The court's power to grant injunctions is subject to procedural rules, and reliance on inherent jurisdiction is only appropriate when the case falls outside the scope of specific provisions. The legislature's intent to restrict or permit certain reliefs guides the court's exercise of discretion (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal framework emphasizes that applications for temporary injunctions are primarily governed by specific rules, and the exercise of inherent powers is limited and should align with legislative intent. Defendants generally cannot seek injunctions under clauses (b) and (c) of Order 39 in the same suit initiated by the plaintiff, and any relief outside these provisions must be carefully justified within the bounds of inherent jurisdiction.