Injunction against execution of a subsisting compromise decree is unavailable under Order 39 and beyond subordinate court power.

An injunction to restrain execution of a subsisting compromise decree is not available under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure merely because the decree is under appeal or the applicants were not parties to it. Execution of an unset aside decree is not treated as legal injury within those provisions. The commentary also states that subordinate courts do not have inherent jurisdiction, outside Order 39, to grant such extraordinary injunctive relief; any wider inherent power recognised in some decisions is confined to the High Court. Accordingly, applications for interim injunction on these grounds are unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an interim injunction could be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain execution of a compromise decree pending appeal. (ii) Whether the subordinate court had inherent power, apart from Order 39, to grant such an injunction.

Issue (i): Whether an interim injunction could be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain execution of a compromise decree pending appeal.

Analysis: The relief sought was to prevent execution of a compromise decree that had not been set aside. The case was not shown to fall within the scope of Order 39, Rule 1, and the execution of the decree could not be treated as committing a legal injury within Order 39, Rule 2 merely because the appellants were not parties to the decree. The execution of a subsisting decree did not furnish a basis for injunction under those provisions.

Conclusion: No injunction could be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 or 2.

Issue (ii): Whether the subordinate court had inherent power, apart from Order 39, to grant such an injunction.

Analysis: Any extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions beyond Order 39 was not available to the subordinate court. The broader powers recognised in some decisions were confined to the High Court and could not be invoked to sustain the orders of the lower court or the appellate court below the High Court.

Conclusion: The subordinate court had no inherent jurisdiction to grant the injunction.

Final Conclusion: The applications for interim injunction were unsustainable in law, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An injunction to restrain execution of a subsisting compromise decree cannot be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and subordinate courts not possess any inherent jurisdiction to grant such relief outside that provision.

---