The inherent power of the court cannot be invoked to consider a third party claim before attachment of the property, as detailed provisions in the Civil Procedure Code and the Limitation Act cover the procedure for attachment before judgment and addressing third party claims.

1. The revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the Munsiff Court, Trichur, in I. A. No. 2990 of 1971 in O. S. No. 805 of 1971 by which the learned Munsiff refused to enquire into a claim petition filed by the petitioner against an attachment of property. The plaintiff in that case filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money from the defendants and applied for attachment before judgment of certain movable properties kept in a shop alleged to belong to the defendants. The revision petitioner, on coming to know of this order for attachment, filed an application in court objecting to the attachment of the moveables on the ground that the moveables belonged to him and did not belong to the defendants in the case. That petition was dismissed by the learned Munsiff as not maintainable on the ground that a petition objecting to the attachment can be entertained only after the attachment was effected. It is against that order that this revision petition is filed.

2. The petitioner contends that the court will get jurisdiction to attach the property only if the property belongs to the defendants and when a third party comes forward with an objection that the property does not belong to the defendants the matter can be enquired into by the court under S.151 of the Civil Procedure Code even before attachment is effected. The question is whether this contention is correct.

3. No party has a right to insist on the court exercising its inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is to be exercised by the court in every exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. The Legislature has made detailed provisions in the Code for various matters. If there are express provisions in the Code covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. The power under the Code need not even be express. It may be implied or can even be implicit from the very nature of the provisions made for covering the contingencies to which they relate.

4. In order to prevent the ends of justice being defeated certain protective orders can be passed by the court pending suit (see S.94, CPC.). Under 0.38 R.S, in a suit for money when, on filing the suit the plaintiff finds that the defendant, with a view to defeat or delay the execution of a decree that may be passed against him, is attempting to dispose of or otherwise deal with his property, the former can move the court to call upon the defendant to furnish security and pending that may also seek to attach his property, moveable or immoveable. The court can issue an order only if it is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the plaintiff has made out a case for attachment before judgment. It is an extraordinary measure and the court is excepted to be very careful in issuing exparte orders. If a third party is aggrieved by the attachment he can move the court for raising the attachment. It is only then that his right to move the court can arise and is recognised. His claim or objection will be investigated in the same manner as a claim petition is enquired into in execution of the decree under 0.21 R.58 to 63, CPC. The enquiry under these rules is of a summary nature and the aggrieved party has a right of suit under 0.21 R.63 and the period of limitation will be one year under Art.98 of the Limitation Act. All these are covered by express provisions under the Code and the Limitation Act.

5. It is said that if the third party can move the court only after the property is attached it will be of no assistance to him because by the process of attachment harm would have been done to him. His reputation and credit would have been damaged beyond repair. This risk is safeguarded by the Code itself providing that the court can issue the order only on being satisfied by affidavit or otherwise of the need for attachment. The risk to the plain