Injunction against alienation in a money suit needs statutory basis; inherent power cannot bypass the Code.

A temporary injunction application need not be dismissed for default merely because the plaintiff is absent if the affidavit on record and the opposite party's objection enable decision on merits. A court may also, in an appropriate case, issue an injunction affecting property outside its territorial limits, but only where the substantive legal requirements are met. In a money suit, however, restraint on alienation cannot be granted unless the statutory conditions are satisfied, including a proper basis for such relief and material showing an intention to defeat creditors. Inherent power cannot be used to bypass the Code; the interim restraint was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application for temporary injunction could be decided on merits when the plaintiff was absent on the date of hearing, (ii) whether an injunction restraining transfer of property situated beyond the territorial limits of the court could be sustained, and (iii) whether the injunction could be granted in a money suit without the statutory ingredients for attachment before judgment or fraud being established.

Issue (i): whether an application for temporary injunction could be decided on merits when the plaintiff was absent on the date of hearing

Analysis: The procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure applies to miscellaneous proceedings so far as practicable. An injunction application is ordinarily supported by affidavit, and the affidavit already on record may be treated as evidence. In such a situation, the court is not bound to dismiss the application for default merely because the plaintiff is absent; it may consider the affidavit and the objection filed by the opposite party and decide the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether an injunction restraining transfer of property situated beyond the territorial limits of the court could be sustained

Analysis: A court can, in an appropriate case, issue orders affecting property beyond its territorial jurisdiction, and even attachment before judgment can be made operative through the machinery provided by the Code. If that be so, there is no legal bar to an injunction restraining transfer or alienation of such property, provided the case otherwise falls within the governing legal requirements.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the injunction could be granted in a money suit without the statutory ingredients for attachment before judgment or fraud being established

Analysis: The suit was essentially for recovery of money with a prayer for declaration of secured creditor status. The property of the defendant was not the subject-matter of the suit merely because a consequential injunction was sought. The plaintiff had not shown a strong prima facie case for being declared a secured creditor, and a mere money claim does not by itself create such status. Further, where the case does not satisfy the statutory requirements for restraint on alienation, especially the absence of an allegation or proof that the defendant intended to transfer property with a view to defrauding creditors, the court cannot grant the same relief indirectly by invoking inherent power under Section 151. What is specifically barred by the Code cannot be granted through a roundabout route.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The temporary injunction was unsustainable in law and the plaintiff's application could not be maintained. The appeal succeeded and the interim restraint stood vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit, an injunction restraining alienation of the defendant's property cannot be granted unless the case satisfies the statutory conditions governing such restraint, and inherent powers cannot be used to confer relief that the Code itself does not permit.

---