Radhakrishnan, J.

The question whether an order of temporary injunction can be granted on the application of a defendant has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge. The question more precisely is whether the injunction envisaged in Order 39 Rule 1c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') can be granted when a defendant moves for the same. Learned Single Judge thought it necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question as he felt that there is conflict between the observations contained in Vincent v. Aisumma, 1988 (1) K.L.T. 420 and the views expressed in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Joshi,1985 KLT 132.

2. An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do or to refrain from doing, any particular act. One of the primary purposes of granting interim relief is preservation of the property in dispute till the legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated. It is in the nature of a protective relief granted in favour of a party to prevent future possible injury. A temporary injunction is regulated by the provisions of Section 94 and Order 39 of the Code, and it can be granted at any stage of the suit. Grant of temporary injunction is in the discretion of the Court. The discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously, and on sound legal principles. Order 39 Rule 1" is extracted below:

0.39. Rule 1: Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.

the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or to make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff, in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit, or until further orders.

On a reading of the said provision, it is evident that the court can grant an injunction at the instance of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant, where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger at being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. Injunction can also be granted when the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. Earlier there had been conflicting judicial views as to whether a court can issue an order of temporary injunction at the instance of the plaintiff or at the instance of the defendant, if either of them threatens to dispossess each other in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.

3. A Learned Single Judge of this Court in B.F. Varghese v. Joseph Thomas, 1956 KLT 615 endorsed the view that an injunction could be granted to a defendant by invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code. Learned single judge relied on the principle followed by Buckly, J. in the case of Collision v. Warrant, (1901) 1 Ch.812. In B.F. Varghese 's case (supra), the defendant preferred an application for mandatory injunction restraining the plaintiff to remove the block up and replace the door as well as put back the smoke tiles on thereof. The trial court granted the prayer and learned-single judge upheld it,

4. Some of the High Courts have taken the view that the court has no inherent power to grant temporary injunction o