The main legal point established in the judgment is that an injunction cannot be granted against a statutory authority preventing it from discharging its normal functions. The Court emphasized that the interim relief granted should be within the scope of the main relief in the suit and should not interfere with the statutory functions of a Municipality.

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

The respondent filed O.S.No.15/2014 on the file of Sub Court, Manjeri against the appellant, the Manjeri Municipality for realisation of money. The respondent/plaintiff entered into a contract with Manjeri Municipality for construction of a Bus Stand-cum- Shopping Complex. The construction work was completed. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 2,10,76,203/- is due from the appellant/defendant Municipality on account of contract work. The suit was filed for realisation of the said amount.

2. The appellant/defendant contended in the written statement that the Municipality could not pay the balance amount payable to the plaintiff on account of paucity funds. The Municipality also disputed the rate of interest. It was stated that a total sum of Rs. 5,47,00,771/- was paid to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, a cheque for Rs.30 lakhs was issued to the plaintiff. The balance payable is only Rs. 1,16,28,559/-. It is stated in the written statement that the auction to lease out the shop rooms in the building belonging to the Municipality was not fully successful and therefore, the Municipality could not raise funds to discharge the liability to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.373/2014 under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure for an injunction restraining the defendant from releasing any amounts in respect of the construction works, which were completed after 4.8.2012. In the affidavit, the plaintiff stated that even when the liability to the plaintiff was not discharged, the defendant invited tenders for other works and those contractors were paid amounts. Only since the other contractors were paid amounts, the Municipality could not discharge the liability towards the plaintiff. If the defendant is restrained from releasing any amount in respect of the new construction works for a period of six months, the amounts due to the plaintiff could be easily discharged by the defendant.

4. The defendant Municipality contested the application for temporary injunction and contended that the application is not maintainable. It was stated that the defendant would be able to discharge the amount due to the plaintiff within nine months. Being a local Self Government institution, the Municipality has to undertake the health related activities, waste management, water supply, providing street lights and other important matters. If an injunction is granted against the Municipality, the activities of the Municipality would come to a stand still.

5. The Court below allowed I.A.No.373/2014 in the following terms:

"Here it is a case in which, defendant is admitting the liability to certain extent. So, even though, the suit is one for realisation of amount, exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, an interlocutory application for temporary injunction is perfectly maintainable before this Court. ..........

xxx xxx xxx xxx

In the result, Interlocutory Application is allowed in part with costs, restraining defendant from undertaking any construction works or making any payments from the date of this order till admitted amount is paid off to the plaintiff or the suit is finally disposed off, without prior permission of this court. In case of emergent needs, Manjeri Municipality is at liberty to undertake such works and dispose of funds up to Rupees one lakh at a time without such prior permission. The emergent works include works connected to health hazards, waste disposal, providing drinking water, maintaining the road and other similar works."

The order passed by the Court below is under challenge in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submitted that the order impugned is absolutely without jurisdiction and that the provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted in the case at all.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff justified the order passed by the Court below. He submitted that eve