The inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked when a specific remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

ISMAIL, J. :- This appeal is directed against the order of Maharajan, J., dismissing Appln. No. 1200 of 1970 in C. S. No. 135 of 1967. Though the decision in the appeal does not turn upon the facts of this case, it is desirable to set out the facts for the purpose of understanding as to how this appeal arises. The appellant herein was the first defendant in C. S. 135 of 1967. A Greek ship "s. s. Stamatis", which was caught in the cyclone of November, 1966, ran aground opposite to the Marina at Madras. The appellant herein agreed to purchase the ship from Messrs. Diana Maritime Corporation, the owners thereof for Rupees seven lakhs and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,750/-towards the sale price. Being unable to pay the balance of the sale price, he entered into negotiations with the owners of the ship, who agreed to reduce the sale price to Rupees 3,30,000/-, as well as to adjust the deposit made by him towards the agreed sale price. He had hardly two days left for payment of the balance and therefore he entered into a hurried agreement with the plaintiffs in the suit, whereby the plaintiffs undertook to pay the sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the owners of the ship on behalf of the appellant on condition that the appellant paid them a remuneration equal to 75 per cent of the amount of investment and agreed to repay the entire amount within six months time. It was also agreed between the plaintiffs and the appellant that if any necessity arose, the plaintiffs should extend the time for payment by three months. The appellant also agreed on 10-07-1967 to give security by pledging the ship to the plaintiffs and executing in favour of the second plaintiff an irrevocable power of attorney for the purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to arrange for the work of breaking up the ship and dismantling the parts thereof and to recoup themselves out of the sale proceeds. One of the clauses in the agreement provided that the plaintiffs should be put in possession of the ship. Subsequently, the plaintiffs instituted the suit C. S. 135 of 1967 on the file of this court (1) for a declaration that the 's. s. Stamatis' was under a valid pledge to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were entitled to sell the ship or part or parts thereof and recoup themselves the amount of advance and other amounts including the remuneration due to them under the contract dated 10-07-1967, (2) for a mandatory injunction restraining the appellant or his agents from making contracts to sell, or selling and delivering the said ship or any part or parts thereof, including the fixtures, fittings, loose materials inside the ship or dealing with the same in any manner except with the concurrence of the plaintiffs and on the terms that the price shall be paid directly into the hands of the plaintiffs, (3) for a preliminary decree against the appellant for rendition of accounts in respect of moneys received from defendants 2 and 3 or from any other parties on any transactions relating to the ship, either by way of sale price or advance and for such amounts as may be found due to the plaintiffs on taking such accounts, (4) for the costs of suit and (5) for such other reliefs. In this suit, five persons were originally arrayed as defendants, including the appellant herein as the first defendant. The second defendant was impleaded because the plaintiffs came to know from a notice issued by him that the appellant had entered into a contract with the second defendant for supply of re-rollable materials as per an agreement allegedly executed on 05-07-1967. The third defendant was impleaded because it was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs that the appellant had received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- from him against the supply of non-ferrous metals which the appellant had promised to deliver to the third defendant. The Collector of Customs was impleaded as the fourth defendant because he might have a prior right for duty. The fifth defendant is the Commissioner of Police, Madras,