Inherent power supports temporary injunctions, but factual necessity must justify restraining bank withdrawals.

A civil court may, in a proper case, grant a temporary injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if Order 39 does not expressly provide the needed authority, because inherent jurisdiction is available where the Code is not exhaustive and justice so requires. On the facts, however, the restraint on withdrawal from the defendants' bank accounts was not justified: the materials showed that the land and building were prima facie available as assets and likely sufficient to satisfy any decree, so the apprehension of ineffective recovery did not sustain the injunction. The restraint order was therefore vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a court can grant a temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 notwithstanding the provisions relating to injunctions in Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether, on the facts proved, the injunction order restraining withdrawal from the bank accounts was justified.

Issue (i): Whether a court can grant a temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 notwithstanding the provisions relating to injunctions in Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Analysis: The existence of specific provisions dealing with temporary injunctions does not, by itself, exclude the court's inherent power where the Code has not made the relevant field exhaustive. Inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to do what is right and necessary when the statutory provision does not fully meet the justice of the case.

Conclusion: The court can, in a proper case, grant a temporary injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 even where Order 39 does not itself furnish the needed authority.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts proved, the injunction order restraining withdrawal from the bank accounts was justified.

Analysis: The materials showed that the land and building were prima facie available as assets of the defendant association and were likely to be sufficient to satisfy any decree that might ultimately be passed. In those circumstances, the apprehension that the plaintiff would be left without an effective means of realization was not sufficient to sustain the restraint on the defendants' accounts.

Conclusion: The injunction was not justified on the facts and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded and the restraint order was vacated, while the appeal itself was treated as incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power of a civil court may be used for temporary injunctions where the Code's express provisions are not exhaustive, but such relief must still be supported by the facts and necessity of justice.

---