JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Leave to delete the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to secure the amount of Rs. 2,01,026/- i.e. the suit claim, out of pensionary benefits which he is likely to receive on or after 31-3-2000. The order is stated to have been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount sufficient to satisfy suit claim. The order is stated to have been passed in terms of the provisions contained in section 94(c) of C.P.C.

3. Apparently, the order has been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount in order to facilitate the respondent to recover the suit claim in case he succeeds in getting a favourable decree. Undisputedly, the Court is empowered to pass the order for detention, preservation or inspection of any property during the pendency of the suit. However, such power can be in relation to the property, which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit. In other words, the property to be preserved or detained or inspected must be one which is in one way or other related to the matter issue in the suit. This is very clear from the provisions of law under Order 39, Rule 7 of C.P.C. Therefore, such power cannot be exercised in relation to the property which is in no way concerned with the dispute in the matter.

4. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that pursuant to grant of Indian Credit Card Facility to the petitioner, he had withdrawn various amounts from the different branches of the respondent-bank and, therefore, his account with the respondent-bank had become over drawn account and consequently the petitioner become liable to pay the sum of Rs. 2,01,026/- to the respondent-defendant. The suit is, therefore, for recovery of money allegedly due to the respondent-bank by the petitioner on account of over drawing of amount from his account while enjoying the facility under the credit card. Undisputedly, the amount which is likely to be received by the petitioner as his retirement or pensionary benefits is neither the subject matter of the suit nor in any manner relates to the matter in dispute and, therefore, no such order could have been passed under Order 39, Rule 7 of C.P.C.

5. Once there are specific provisions for taking action for the purpose of detention and preservation of the subject matter of the suit or the property in dispute and the same being contemplated under Order 39, Rule 7 of C.P.C. taking resort to some other provisions of C.P.C. for the such purpose cannot arise.

6. As regards the powers of the Court under section 94(e) of C.P.C. to pass interlocutory order, to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated and as it may appear to be just and convenient, if it is so prescribed, it is to be noted that the execution of such powers under the said provisions has necessarily to be in relation to the subject matter of dispute or the property relating to the dispute in the matter. Certainly, such power cannot be resorted to in relation to the property totally foreign to the dispute and unconnected with the claim of the parties to the suit.

7. Besides, the expression, "if it is so prescribed" in section 94 reveals the limitation of and the restrictions for exercise of such powers by the Court. This has been well explained by Calcutta High Court in (Union of India v. Sailendra Nath Chakraborthy Thakur)1, reported in A.I.R. 1966 Cal. 603 wherein it has been held that :

"The trial Court seems to think that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court can make such other interlocutory orders, as may appear to the Court just and convenient and it is urged that interlocutory order for granting subsistence allowance is one which comes under Clause (e) to section 94 of the Code of Civil Pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document