Temporary injunction and pre-judgment attachment in money suits require strict statutory pleadings; inherent powers cannot override the Code.

In a money recovery suit, temporary injunction against alienating a defendant's property is unavailable unless the strict conditions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 are pleaded and proved, including a factual basis showing intended fraudulent disposal. Mere pendency of a money claim or vague apprehension of non-recovery is insufficient. Likewise, security or attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 requires clear averments that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property to obstruct execution; absent such foundation, relief cannot be granted. Section 151 cannot be used to bypass these statutory limits. The defendant's appeal succeeded and the plaintiff's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a suit for recovery of money, a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain the defendant from transferring or alienating its property. (ii) Whether, in the absence of the requisite averments, the Court can direct furnishing of security or order attachment before judgment, including by invoking inherent powers.

Issue (i): Whether, in a suit for recovery of money, a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain the defendant from transferring or alienating its property.

Analysis: The relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is available only when the statutory conditions are satisfied. In a simple money suit, the property referred to in the pleadings is not, by that reason alone, the property in dispute in the suit. A defendant's general power of alienation cannot be curtailed unless the case falls within the specific grounds in Order 39 Rule 1, including an allegation that the defendant intends to dispose of property with a view to defraud creditors. No such foundational averment was made here, and the suit claim was essentially for recovery of money.

Conclusion: The injunction could not be sustained in law.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of the requisite averments, the Court can direct furnishing of security or order attachment before judgment, including by invoking inherent powers.

Analysis: Order 38 Rule 5 requires a clear factual basis showing that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of the decree. Vague assertions of financial difficulty or apprehension of non-recovery are insufficient. The Court also held that Section 151 cannot be used to grant relief that affects substantive rights where the Code itself does not permit such relief. The inherent power is procedural and cannot override the statutory limits governing injunctions and attachment before judgment.

Conclusion: The application for security or attachment before judgment was not maintainable on the facts, and inherent powers could not be invoked to grant the same relief.

Final Conclusion: The defendant's appeal succeeded and the plaintiff's appeal failed, as neither the injunction nor the attachment-before-judgment relief was justified on the pleadings and materials.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit, a defendant's property cannot be restrained from alienation or attached before judgment unless the strict statutory conditions are pleaded and established; inherent powers cannot be used to confer such substantive relief in the absence of those conditions.

---