A temporary injunction can be granted only if the applicant satisfies the court that he has a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the petitiont'r in this civil revision against an order refusing the prayer for temporary injunction during pendency of the suit.

2. Plaintiff is a clerk employed by the Defendant. He was posted at the main branch of the Defendant at Cuttack. After serving for some time, be was transferred to the branch of the Defendant in SCB Medical College. Aggrieved by the order of transfer Plaintiff filed the suit for prohibitory injunction not to give effect to the order Of transfer which is alleged to be in violation of the circular issued by the head office of the Defendant. In the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. Defendant filed objection to the said application but did not produce some documents caned for and did not answer the interrogatories. Accordingly it was not allowed to contest the application. However, trial court which passed the order of status quo vacated the same. This civil revision has been filed against the said order.

3. Mr. M. N. Das, learned Counsel for the opposite parties, raised an objection to the maintainability of the civil revision on the ground that an appeal lies against the impugned order which could have been filed in the District. Court. Mr. ]. Das, learned .counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the application for temporary injunction was filed invoking the inherent power of the Court u/s 151, CPC and not under Order 39. Rule 1. CPC and accordingly, no appeal lies against the order u/s 151. CPC . This question need not detain me further since without answering the preliminary objection of Mr. . Das, I considered the matter on merit.

4. Mr. J. Das. submitted that the trial court has not been able to appreciate the decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in Sukhdev Singh, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation Employees Associations Vs. Bhagat Ram, Association of Clause II. Officers, Shyam Lal, Industrial Finance Corporation, and Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and Ors. AIR 1983 S.C. 1577, for which there is exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. As has been held in Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others while considering the application for temporary injunction, prima facie case and balance of convenience are to be considered. This Court has also held in the decision reported in Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Limited, represented by its Secretary v. Satyanarayan Singh and Anr. ILR 1973 Cut. 1059 that for granting temporary injunction, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are to be satisfied. In case any of the three ingredients is not satisfied, no injunction should be granted.

5. Whether the application is under Order 39. Rule 1, CPC or u/s 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, the three ingredients are required to be satisfied in a particular case while exercising inherent power it is to be considered if ends of justice demands exercise of such power his a well known principle that where there is specific provision In the statute the inherent power is not to be exercised. When Order 39. Rule I, CPC specifically provides for injunction, the wide inherent power is to be sparingly used. I am satisfied that inherent power ought not to be exercised unless the, Petitioner is able to show that such irreparable injury would be caused to him unless the Court Comes in aid that it can in no Circumstance be repaired.

6. The entire suit is based on a circular issued by the head office of the State Bank of India. If an officer subordinate his violated a circular issued by the bead office person aggrieved can approach the head office intimating that the benevolent circular issued by it, has been violated by its subordinate. Thus, the injury caused to the Plaintiff could have been repaired by approach to the head office which issued the circular. It is not tha