1. The plaintiff is the appellant. It has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,48,263/- against the respondents. Simultaneously, it has also filed an application under order 39 Rule 1 CPC to restrain the-defendants from alienating their property during the pendency of the suit, so as to defeat the decree that may be passed by the court. This application has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jammu vide order dated 10-09-1997 by observing as under: -

Order 39 Rule 1 lays down the circumstances under which temporary injunction can be granted. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery and seeks to restrain the defendants-non-applicants from alienating or transferring their property lest the decree passed in the case may not be frustrated or otherwise the plaintiff-applicant may not be deprived of its fruits. Admittedly the property of the defendants is in no manner involved in the suit nor any relief has been claimed in respect of the property of the defendants which is located outside the jurisdiction of the court for defendants being residence of Bangalore, the matter involved in the injunction application is not covered by the suit. It is settled proposition of law that there can be no question of granting temporary injunction in respect of the matter outside the scope of the suit. Therefore, injunction application is not maintainable and is hereby disallowed.

2. Mr. Thakur appearing for the appellant argued that the trial court has mis-construed the scope of Rule-1 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure as if it is applicable only in a suit for permanent injunction. Mr. Gupta on the other hand argued that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity because no restraint order can be passed in respect of the property which is not the subject matter of the suit. He supports this with reference to AIR 1958 Madras 287 (K.P. Aboobuker Vs. Kunchamoo).

3. Rule-1 has three clauses. The case of the appellant is covered by sub-rule(b) of the Rule-1, which reads as under: -

(b) That the defendant threatens or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property (or dis-possession 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.

4. The learned District Judge has thus failed to appreciate the ambit and scope of the sub-Rule. It mandates that even in a money suit injunction can be granted to restrain the defendant from alienating any property movable or immovalbe to protect the interest of creditors.

5. This view is fortified by a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in The Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs. Rana Sheo Ambar Singh and Others. (AIR 1975 Allahabad 447) holding that:

As regards the scope of Order 39, Rule 1 of Code it has been held by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bhadur Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal (AIR 1962 Sc 527) that there being no such expression in Section 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by order 39 or by any rules made under the code, the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of order 39, CPC, if the court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction. In many cases where the circumstances require it, the courts have thus proceeded upon the assumption of possession of inherent power to set ex-debite justiciae and to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone they exist (See Dhaneshwar Nath Vs. Ghanishyam Dhar, AIR 1940 All 1851.)

After referring story in Equity Jurisprudence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document