# V ARE.ED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE AND ORS - **Citation:** [2004] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 534 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2004-04-21 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2634 of2004 - **Bench:** V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-are-ed-jacob-v-sosamma-geev-arghese-and-ors-19962 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Orders 21, 38, 39 and 40; Sections 94 and 151: Suit/or partition-Decreed by MunsiffCourt in favour of one of the C defendants granting recovery of certain items-Challenged by another defendant by filing a suit against decree holder-Issuance of temporary injunction by the Court-Suit dismissed for default-Restoration of suitSuit finally dismissed on merit-Appeal dismissed by the first Appellate Court and Second appeal dismissed by High Court-Execution Petition-Expiry of limitation period-Executing Court held since the decree holder was precluded D from executing the decree in time by filing a suit, time elapsed in the proceeding of the Court could be excluded wiiile computing limitation period for the purpose of execution of the decree-Affirmed by the High Court. Held Per majority: E Depending upon the circumstances of the case, different set of-rules have been applied to grant interim relief-The rules of temporary injunction under Order 39 cannot be equated with the rules of attachment before judgment under Order 38-F acts and circumstances of the case fall under Order 39 and not under Order 38-Hence, the decree holder was entitled to F exclude the time elapsed in disposing of the suit for computing the period of limitation for the purpose of execution of the decree. Held, Per minority: An Order of temporary injunction could be merged with a decree of G permanent injunction and it would be effective even when a decree is passedHowever, it does not entail its revival upon restoration of a suit which was dismissed for default-Supplemental proceeding could be taken recourse to only when the interest of justice is required to be sub-served-A construction · which preserves the rights of the parties pending adjudication must be allowed to operate vis-a-vis privilege conferred upon a plaintiff to obiain an If 534 V AREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE 535 interlocutory order which loses its force on dismissal of the suit-It would A not revive unless expressly directed by the Court on restoration of the suit. Limitation Act: Jurisdiction of the Court-A suit/proceeding, if barred by limitation, culminates into a right to the non-suitor which could be curtailed only by B express terms of a statute-It ousts the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the same. Incidental proceedings vis-a-vis supplemental proceedings-Distinction between in the context of revival of interlocutory order on restoration of the suit-Discussed C In a suit for partition the MunsifT Court has granted recovery of certain items in the final decree in favour of one of the defendants. Another defendant filed a suit against the decree holder. The Court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree. Later, D the suit was dismissed by the Court for default. The suit was restored to file; it was ultimately dismissed on merits. First Appellate Court and thereafter High Court dismissed the appeals filed before them. The decree holder filed the Execution Petition. The Judgment debtor objected on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 12 years from the date of the decree. The Executing Court held that the Execution Petition was filed E within time since the decree holder was precluded from executing the decree for the period from 25th June, 1969 to 21st March, 1975, when the suit filed by the judgment debtor came to be finally dismissed on merits. The judgment was affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. It was contended by the appellant that during pendency of the suit filed F by him against the decree-holder, there was an order of temporary injunction restricting execution of the decree but with the dismissal of the suit for default, the order of temporary injunction came to an end and it did not revive even on restoration of the suit and consequently nothing prevented the decree holder from executing the decree. G Respondents (decree-holder) submitt ## Text _Characters 0–39,904 of 65,724. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._ A B V ARE.ED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE AND ORS. APRIL 21, 2004 [V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Orders 21, 38, 39 and 40; Sections 94 and 151: Suit/or partition-Decreed by MunsiffCourt in favour of one of the C defendants granting recovery of certain items-Challenged by another defendant by filing a suit against decree holder-Issuance of temporary injunction by the Court-Suit dismissed for default-Restoration of suitSuit finally dismissed on merit-Appeal dismissed by the first Appellate Court and Second appeal dismissed by High Court-Execution Petition-Expiry of limitation period-Executing Court held since the decree holder was precluded D from executing the decree in time by filing a suit, time elapsed in the proceeding of the Court could be excluded wiiile computing limitation period for the purpose of execution of the decree-Affirmed by the High Court. Held Per majority: E Depending upon the circumstances of the case, different set of-rules have been applied to grant interim relief-The rules of temporary injunction under Order 39 cannot be equated with the rules of attachment before judgment under Order 38-F acts and circumstances of the case fall under Order 39 and not under Order 38-Hence, the decree holder was entitled to F exclude the time elapsed in disposing of the suit for computing the period of limitation for the purpose of execution of the decree. Held, Per minority: An Order of temporary injunction could be merged with a decree of G permanent injunction and it would be effective even when a decree is passedHowever, it does not entail its revival upon restoration of a suit which was dismissed for default-Supplemental proceeding could be taken recourse to only when the interest of justice is required to be sub-served-A construction · which preserves the rights of the parties pending adjudication must be allowed to operate vis-a-vis privilege conferred upon a plaintiff to obiain an If 534 V AREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE 535 interlocutory order which loses its force on dismissal of the suit-It would A not revive unless expressly directed by the Court on restoration of the suit. Limitation Act: Jurisdiction of the Court-A suit/proceeding, if barred by limitation, culminates into a right to the non-suitor which could be curtailed only by B express terms of a statute-It ousts the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the same. Incidental proceedings vis-a-vis supplemental proceedings-Distinction between in the context of revival of interlocutory order on restoration of the suit-Discussed C In a suit for partition the MunsifT Court has granted recovery of certain items in the final decree in favour of one of the defendants. Another defendant filed a suit against the decree holder. The Court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree. Later, D the suit was dismissed by the Court for default. The suit was restored to file; it was ultimately dismissed on merits. First Appellate Court and thereafter High Court dismissed the appeals filed before them. The decree holder filed the Execution Petition. The Judgment debtor objected on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 12 years from the date of the decree. The Executing Court held that the Execution Petition was filed E within time since the decree holder was precluded from executing the decree for the period from 25th June, 1969 to 21st March, 1975, when the suit filed by the judgment debtor came to be finally dismissed on merits. The judgment was affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. It was contended by the appellant that during pendency of the suit filed F by him against the decree-holder, there was an order of temporary injunction restricting execution of the decree but with the dismissal of the suit for default, the order of temporary injunction came to an end and it did not revive even on restoration of the suit and consequently nothing prevented the decree holder from executing the decree. G Respondents (decree-holder) submitted that an ancillary order passed in a suit which was dismissed for default stood automatically revived on its restoration and so he was entitled to exclude the period during which the suit filed against execution of the decree was finally disposed of, for the purpose of computation of limitation period in executing the decree. H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Dismissing ttie appeal, the Court. HELD: Per V.N. Khare, CJ/ (for himself and Kapadia, J.): 1.1. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 94 CPC could grant interim relief only if the circumstances of the case fall under the rules. B Therefore, when a matter comes before the Court, the Court has to examine the facts of each case and ascertain whether the ingredients of Section 9~ read with the rules in an Order are satisfied and accordingly grant appropriate relief. It is only in cases where circumstances do not fall under any of the rules prescribed that the Court can invoke its inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Accordingly, the Courts have to grant relief of attachment before C judgment, if the circumstances fall under Order 38 CPC. Similarly, Courts will grant temporary injunction if the case satisfies Order 39. So depending on the circumstances falling in the prescribed rules, the power of the Court to grant specified relie~s would vary. Therefore, each set of rules prescribed are distinct and different from the other, and therefore, one cannot equate D rules of temporary injunction with rules of attachment before judgment although all are broadly termed as interlocutory orders. [544-H; 545-A-B-C) E Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirala/, A~ (1962) SC 527 and Mis. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Kanhyalal · Bhargave, AIR (1966) SC 1899, referred to. Jagjit.Singh Khanna v. Dr. Rakhal Das Mullick, AIR (1988) Calcutta 95, referred to. · 1.2. The Court if satisfied that the defendant is likely to defeat th~ decree in future as and when it. is passed, then the Court shall grant attachment F before judgment even before final adjudication of the Claim of the plaintiffs, hence it is an extraordinary relief being given under Order J8 rule 1 CPC to the plaintiff by the Court. However, under Order 39 rule 9 CPC the Court shall order withdrawal of attachment when the suit is dismissed.-Therefore, rule 9 makes it mandatory for the (:ourt to lift the attachment at the time of G the dismissal of the suit. Attachment is a part of execution process. It is granted to protect the decree. The scheme of Order 38 is different from Order 39 or Order 40. Hence, one cannot compare attachment under Order 38 with power of the Court to grant temporary injunction under Order 39 as interlocutory orders. Similarly, Order 21, Ru~e 57 indicates the duty on the Courts to order whether the attachment shalt'continue or cease on the H dismissal of the execution suit The facts of the present case are appropriately ·~ I VAREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE 537 covered by the provisions of Order 39 and not Order 38. In the facts and A circumstances of the case, the decree hol~er was entitled to exclude the period of 5 years 8 months and 26 days between 25th June, 1969 and 21st March, 1975 in computing the period oflimitation for execution of the decree. (546-B-C-D-E; 547-H; 548-A) Shiva v. Sharnappa, AIR (1968) Mysore 238; Saranatha Ayyangar v. B Muthiah Moopanar and Ors., AIR (1934) Madras 49; Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad, AIR (1956) Patna 271 and Nandipati Rami Reddi v. Nandipati Padma Reddy, AIR (1978) A.P. 30, approved. Abdul Hamid v. Karim Bux and Ors., AIR (1973) Allahabad 67; Raj Chandra Gupta v. Ramesh Kishore, AIR (1965) Allahabad 546 and Nagar C Mahapalika v. Ved Prakash, AIR (1976) All.264, held not applicable. Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury, (19871 4 SCC 78, referred to. Per S.B. S(nha, J. (dissenting): I.I. A Court or a Tribunal entitled to adjudicate upon an issue arising in a tis between the parties has the requisite jurisdiction to pass orders which D are incidental thereto so as to enable it to effectively .adjudicate the same. Such a power of a Court or a Tribunal to do all things necessary to effectively E adjudicate upon the lis need not be specifically conferred by the statute; such power being ancillary to the power of the Court is adjunct to the Court's/ Tribunal's power of adjudication. (548-F-G) 1.2. The Code of Civil Procedure uses different expressions in relation to incidental proceedings and supplemental proceedings. An order passed in F the incidental proceedings will have a direct bearing on the result of the suit. Such proceedings which are in aid of the final proceedings cannot be held to be at par with supplemental proceedings which may not have anything to do with the ultimate result of the suit. A supplemental proceeding is initiated with a view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. It. may not be taken recourse to as a routine matter but only when an exigency arises G therefor. The orders passed in the supplemental proceedings may some time cause hardships to the other side and, thus, are required to be taken recourse to when a situation arises therefor and not otherwise. Incidental proceedings are, however, taken recourse to in aid of the ultimate dec~ion of the suit which would mean that any order passed in terms thereof, subject to the rules H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. A prescribed therefor, would have a bearing on the merit of the matter. Whenever an order is passed by the Court in exercise of its ancillary pQwer or in the· incidental proceedings, the same may re~ive on revival of the suit. But so far as supplemental proceedings are concerned, the Court may have to pass a fresh order. The orders passed in supplemental proceedings may have to be B treated distinctly as opposed to an order which i~ ancillary in nature or which· has been passed in the incidental proceedings. (548-H; 549-B-C-D-E; HI 1.3. An order of attachment passed under Order 38 CPC would be operative even after the decree is passed. Such an order can be taken benefit of by the decree holder even after a deeree is passed. The Code of Civil C Proc_edure lays down two different schemes, one in relation to the ancillary orders which would aid and supplement the decisions arrived at in the main appeal and the other one which may not have to do anything therewith; An order of attachment before judgment does not entail a_n automatic revival upon· restoration of a suit which is dismissed for default and for that purpose an order of injunction would be treated at par with an order of attachment before D judgment. [549-G; 550-D; 554-A] Bankim Chandra and Ors. v. Chandi Prasad, AIR (1956) Patna 271, approved. Ganesh Prasadon . · a plaintiff to obtain an interlocutory order which loses i~ force by dismissal of suit and, thus, may not revive, unless expressly directed, on restoration of the suiL The interim order of injunction did not revive on restoration of the E suit: The Courts, however, would be well-advised keeping in view the . controversy to specifically pass an order when the suit is dismissed for default stating when interlocutory orders are vacated and on restoration of the suit, ifthe Court intends to revive such interlocutory orders, an exp.ress order to that effect should be passed. (558-C; 559-B-CI · F ' . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2634 of2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 7.200 I of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No.2003 ofl998·B. . . .. G Fiiztin An~ and F.M._S. Anam for the Appell..;.!. P. Krishnamurthy, M.T. George and Silly Sebastian for the Respondents. . ,,·· ' . ' . - - .. ' The following Judgm'erits/Order ~f the Court was delivered by H V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND KAPADIA,J. Leave granted .. V AREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE (KHARE, CJ.) 541 Suit No. 33211122 (NE) was a suit for partition filed in the Munsiff Court; A Kottarakara, in which final decree was passed ·on 21st May, 1964. Under the decree, defendant No. 6 (since deceased) was granted recovery of items I 016. Defendant No.6 died after the decree. The· third defendant in the said Suit No. 33211122 (NE) in tum filed suit No.209 of1969 on 25th June, 1969 against defendant no.6 (decree holder) and others for setting 'aside the decree dated B 21st May, 1964 in SuitNo.33211122 (NE). On 25th June, 1969, the Court pasSed an order of temporary injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree dated 21st May, 1964 in SuitNo.33211122 (NE). On 2nd Apri~ 1973, . Suit No.209 of 1969 filed by the third defendant was dismissed for default. Thereafter application was moved for restoration of Suit No.209 of 1969 and that Su.it was ultimately restored to file on 20th December, 1974. However, C ultimately on merits, suit Nos. 209of1969 was dismissed on 21st March, 1975: The above facts show that the decree holder ·was prevented from executing the decree dated 21st May, 1964 in Suit No.33211122 (NE). during the period 25th June, 1969 up to 21st March, 1975 when Suit No.209 oft969 was pending and ultimately dismissed on merits. Further, against the dismissal of the Suit No.209of1969 the matter was taken in appeal before the first Appellate.Court D · which also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff in Suit No.209 of 1969. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff in Suit No.209/69 carried the matter in appeal before the High Court, which appeal was finally dismissed oA ltth June, 1979. In other words, the decree in Suit No.33211122 (NE) could not be executed during the period 25th June, 1969 up to 11th July, 1979. On 18th March, 1981; E Execution Petition was filed and the decree dated 25th June, 1964 in Suit No.33211122 (NE) was put in execution to which the judgment debtor (the petitioner herein) objected on the ground that the Execution Petition was barred by limitation, as it was not filed within 12 years from the date of the decree i.e. 21st May; 1964. The Executing Court as also the High Court in revision held thai the decree holder in Suit No.33211122 (NE) was precluded F from executfug the decree during the period 25th Jurie, 1969 to 21st Marth, 1975, when the S~ii No.209 of 1969 filed by the judgnient debior came to be· finally dismissed on merits and if that· period was excluded, the EXecution Petition was well within time. Being aggrieved by the d~cision'of the High Court dated 2Sth July 2001, in Civil Revision Petition (CRP) No.2003of1998 G (B), the judgment debtor has come by way of special leave· petition under Articie 136 of the Constitution of India. . · ··Mr. Fazlin Anam, learned counsel appearing on bi:half of the judgment debtor (petitioner) contended that the suit filed by the judgment debtor being· Suit No209of1969 was dismissed for default on 2nd April:J 973. That during H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. A the pendency of Suit No.209of1969, there was an order of temporary injunction dated 25th June, 1969, but with the dismissal of the Suit for default on 2nd April, 1973 the order of temporary injunction dated 25th June, 1969 came to an end that order did not revive even after restoration of Suit No.209of1969 on 20th December, 1974, and consequently nothing prevented the decree holder from executing the decree dated 21st May, 1964, after the restoration B of the suit. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Chander Gupta v. Ramesh Kishore reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad 546 in which it has been held that with the dismissal of the suit, either on.merit or for default, the attachment before judgment comes to an.end even if the suit is restored subsequently C the order of attachment before judgment will not revive automatically. In deciding the matter the Allahabad High Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Ram Chand v. Pitam Mal reported in ( 1888) ILR .10 All. 506. Per contra Mr. P. Krishanmurithy, learned senior ~o.unsel appearing on D behalf of the decree holder-respondent contended that on the restoration of the suit dismissed for default all an~illary orders passed therein stood automatically revived. He, therefore, contended that in the present case when the dismissed Suit No.209 of 1969 came to be restored on 20th December~ 1974, the order of temporary injunction dated 25th June, 1969 stood reviv~~ E and consequently, the decree holder could not have executed the decree an~, therefore, he was entitled to exclude the period between 25th June, 1969 to 21st March, 1975 (when the suit was dismissed on merits) in computation of the period of limitation of 12 years for the purposes of executing the decree dated 21st May, 1964, which was finally put in execution on 18th Mar~h: 1981 after the judgment debtor had exhausted all his remedies by way of the F appeals. In this connection reliance was place~ on the judgment of the Madras High Ccurt in the case of Tavvala Veeraswami v. Pulim Ramanna reported in AIR (1935) Mad. 365 (F.B.)/Reliance was alsQ placed on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad~ported in AIR (1956) Patna 271. Similarly, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nandipati Rami G Reddi v. Nandipati Padma Reddy reported in AIR (1978) A.P. 30 in which it has been laid down that when the dismissed suit is restored, the interim orders and their operation during the period of interregnum are revived and the plaintiff must be restored to the position in which he was situated when the Court dismissed the suit for default any consequently all interlocutory H orders passed before the order of dismissal would also revive along with the VAREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEV ARGHESE [KHARE, CJ.] 543 when the order of dismissal is set aside and the suit is restored, unless the A Court expressly or by implication excludes the operation of interlocutory orders during the period between the dismissal and the restoration. In view of the afore-stated arguments, the point which arise for determination is : whether there is automatic revival of interlocutory orders with the restoration of the suit unless the circumstances occurring during the B interregnum or the orders passed by the court speak to the contrary? Analysis of the provisions of the CPC 1908 Civil Procedure Code 1908 applies to all proceedings in Courts in Civil Jurisdiction, subject to any special or local law or any special jurisdiction C under any other law for the time being in force. The main feature of the Code is its division into two parts. The main body of the Code consists of sections which create jurisdiction while the rules indicate the manner in which the jurisdiction has to be exercised. Section 9 states that the Courts shall have the jurisdiction to try all suits D of civil nature except suit which are expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9 falls in Part-I CPC which deals with suits in general. Part-II deals with execution. Part-II CPC covers sections 51 to 64. Under Section 51 CPC, subject to limitations and conditions as may be prescribed, the Court may order execution of the decree by delivery of any property specifically decreed; by attachment E and sale; by arrest and detention; by appointment of receiver or in such a manner as the nature of the relief granted may require. Therefore, attachment is a part of execution process [see Mahadeo Dubey v. Bhola Nath Dichit reported in (1883) ILR 5 All. page 86 (F.B.)] Part-III CPC deals with incidental proceedings like power of the Court to issue commission, letter of request, etc. Part VI· CPC deals with incidental proceedings which cover section 94 F which inter a/ia empowers to Court to pass interim orders depending upon the circumstances prescribed by the rules. In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth · Hiralal reported in AIR (1962) SC 527, it has been held that the effect of the G expression "if so prescribed" in Section 94 CPC is to prescribe the circumstances in which courts can exercise or grant a particular relief and ordinarily the Court is not to use its inherent powers to make the necessary orders in the interest of justice, but to see whether the circumstances of the case come within the prescribed rule. Therefore, in case where the plaintiff seeks temporary injunction courts have to ascertain whether the facts of the H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A case fall under Order 39. That it is in the incidence of exercise of power of the Court to issue temporary injunction that Section 94 has a role to play and that Section 94, however does not take away the right of the Court to exercise its inherent power. In the same judgment, Section 151 CPC is also analysed. The Apex Court in the same judgment has held that inherent power has not B been conferred upon the Court by Section 151 CPC. It is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. That Section 151 merely recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, therefore, even if in a given case circumstances do not fall within Order 39 CPC, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction if the Court is of the opinion that interest of justice requires issue of such C interim injunction. In the case of Mis Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Kanhayalal Bhargava reported in AIR (1966) SC 1899, it has been held by this Court that the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 CPC is in addition ·to and complimentary to the power expressly conferred under CPC, D but that power will not be exercised in conflict with any of the powers expressly or by implication conferred by other provisions of CPC. If there is express provision covering a particular topic, then Section 151 CPC cannot be applied. Therefore, Section 151 CPC recognizes inherent power of the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice and which inherent power is in E addition to and complementary to powers conferred under CPC, expressly or by implication. In the <.:ase of Jagjit Singh Khanna v. Dr. Rakhal Das Mullick reported in AIR (1988) Calcutta 95 it has been held that a temporary injunction may be granted· under· Section 94© only if a case satisfies Order 39 Rules 1 and p Rule 2. It is not correct to say that the Court has two powers, one to grant temporary injunction under Section 94© and the other under Order 39 Rules l and 2. That Section 94© CPC shows that the Court may grant a temporary injunction thereunder, only if it is so prescribed by Rule l and 2 of Order 39. The Court can. also grant temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, but in that case, it does not grant temporary G injunction under any of the powers conferred by CPC, but under powers inherent in the constitution of the Court, which is saved by Section 151 CPC. The above discussion shows that the source of power of the Court to grant interim relief is under Section 94. However, exercise of that power can H only be done if the circumstances of the case fa~l under the rules. Therefore, VAREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEVARGHESE [KHARE, CJ.] 545 when a matter comes before the Court, the Court has to examine the facts of A each case and ascertain whether the ·ingredients of Section 94 read with the rules in an Order are satisfied and accordingly grant an appropriate relief. It is only in cases where. circumstances do not fall under any of the rules prescribed that the Court can invoke its inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Accordingly, the courts have to grant relief of attachment before judgment, B if the circumstances fall under Order 38 CPC. Similarly, courts will gran~ temporary injunction if the case satisfies Order 39. So depending on th~ circumstanc~s falling in the prescribed rules, the power of the court to grant specified reliefs would vary. The~efore, each set of rules prescribed are distinct. and different from the other and therefore, one cannot equate rules of temporary injunction with rules of attachment before judgment although all are broadly C termed as interlocutory orders. Analysis of the judgments cited before us : In the case of Abdul Hamid v. Karim Bux and Ors., reported in AIR (1973) Allahabad 67, it has been held that on the dismissal of the suit in D default, attachment before judgment automatically ceases and does not revive on the restoration of the suit. In coming to this conclusion, the Allahabad High Court placed reliance on the earlier judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Chandv. Pitam Mal, (1888) ILR IO All. 506. Similarly, in the case of Raj Chandra Gupta v. Ramesh Kishore, reported E in AIR (1965) Allahabad 546, it has been held that on the dismissal of the suit either on merit or for default attachment before judgment shall cease and it shall not revive automatically on restoration of the suit. Here, also reliance has been placed by the Allahabad High Court on the earlier judgment in the case of Ram Chand v. Pitam Mal (supra). In the case of Nagar Mahapa/ika v. Ved Prakash, reported in AIR (1976) All 264, the same view has been taken in that matter. In that matter it was held that interim injunction came to an end on dismissal of the suit for default and it would not automatically revive on res_toration. Here also reliance F has been placed by the Allahabad High Court on its earlier judgment in the G case of Ram Chand v: Pitam Mal (supra). However, this is the only judgment which has equated order of temporary injunction with attachment before judgment as interlocutory order without considering provisions of Order 38 Rule 9 and Rule 11. H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. l S.C.R. A. At the outset, we may point out that the case of Ram Chand v. Pitam Mal (supra) was under the provisions of earlier Civil Procedure Code of 1859. In this case we are concerned with the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, which has made substantial chances with regard to the attachment before judgment: Under Order 38, Rule l an extraordinary relief is given to the plaintiff, namely, in appropriate cases where the court finds a strong prima facie case in favour B of the plaintiff and ifthe Court is satisfied that the defendant is likely to defeat the decree in future as and when it is passed, then the Court shall grant attachment before judgment even before final adjudication of the claim of the plaintiffs, hence it is an extraordinary relief given to the plaintiff by the Court. However,.under Order 38 rule 9 the court shall order withdrawal of attachment C when the suit is dismissed. Therefore, rule 9 makes it mandatory for the court to lift the attachment at the time of the dismissal of the suit. Such a provision is not there under Order 39 or under Order 40. This has not been noticed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nagar Mahapalika v. Ved Prakash, (supra). All the earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court related to Order 38 and not to Order 39. Moreover as stated above, attachment is a part of D execution process. It is granted to protect the decree. Under Order 38 Rule I I it is further provided that when the suit is decreed the courts will continue attachment before judgment and the plaintiff is not required to re-apply for a~achment. The scheme of Order 38 is different from Order 39 or Order 40. Hence, we cannot compare attachment under Order 38 with power of the court E to grant temporary injunction under Order 39 as interlocutory orders. Similarly, Order 21, Rule 57 indicates the duty on the courts to order whether the attachment shall continue or cease on the dismissal of the execution suit. F The facts of the present case and the controversy in this case is covered by the provisions of Order 39 and not Order 38. In the case of Shiva v. Shamappa, reported in AIR (1968) Mysore 238, it has been held that the question whether the restoration of the suit revives ancillary orders passed before the dismissal of the suit depends upon· the terms in which the order of dismissal is passed and the ~crms in which the suit is restored. If the Court dismisses the suit for default, without any G reference to the ancillary orders passed earlier, then the interim order shall revive as and when the suit is restored. However, if the Court dismisses the suit specifically vacating the ancillary orders, then restoration will not revive such ancillary orders. This was a case under Order 39. ' H In the case of Saranatha Ayyangar v. Muthiah Moopanar and Ors., VAREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEVARGHESE [KHARE, CJ.] 547 reported in AIR (1934) Madras 49, it has been held that on restoration of the A suit dismissed for default all interlocutory matters shall stand restored, unless the order of restoration says to the contrary. That as the matter of general rule on restoration of the suit dismissed for default, all interlocutory orders shall stand revived unless during the interregnum between the dismissal. of the suit and restoration, there is any alienation in favour of the third party. B A similar view has been taken by the Patna High Court in the case .of Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad, reported in AIR (1956) Patna 271 in which it has been held that orders of stay pending disposal of the suit are ancillary orders and they are all meant to supplement the ultimate decision arrived at in the main suit and, therefore, when the suit, dismissed for default, C is restored by the order of the Court all ancillary orders passed in the suit shall revive, unless there is any other factor on record or in the order of dismissal to show to the contrary. This was also a matter under Order 39. In the case of Nandipati Rami Reddi v. Nandipati Padma Reddy (supra) it has been held by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High D Court that when the suit is restored, all interlocutory orders and their operation during the period between dismissal of the suit for default and restoration shall stand revived. That once the dismissal is set aside the plaintiff must be restored to the position in which he was situated, when the Court dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, it follows that interlocutory orders which have been passed before the dismissal would stand revived along with the suit E when the dismissal is set aside and this suit is restored unless the Court expressly or by implication excludes the operation of interlocutory orders passed during the period between dismissal of the suit and the reston. ion. In the case of Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury, reported in [1987] 4 sec 78, it has been held that in view of Order 2nd Rule 57 Rule F 57 CPC it is clear that with the dismissal of the title execution suit for default, the attachment levied earlier ceased. However, it has been further held that when the dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored, the effect of restoring the suit was to restore the position prevalent till the dismissal of the suit or before dismissal of the title execution suit. We repeat that judgment . G was under Order 21 Rule 57 whose scheme is similar to Order 38 Rule 11 and Rule I IA CPC and therefore, we cannot put all interlocutory orders on the same basis . .For all the afore-stated reasons, the decree holder in this case was entitled to exclude the period of 5 years 8 months and 26 days between 25th H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A June, 1969 and 21st March, 1975 in computing the period of limitation for execution of the decree. B For afore-stated reasons the appeal is dismissed. No costs. S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. The short question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2001 in C.R.P. No. 2003 of 1998-B passed by the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam is as to whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not. C An order of injunction can be passed under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an order can also be passed by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in the event the prayer for grant of injunction does not fall within the scope of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 39, Rules I and 2 thereof. D An order· of injunction can be granted by the Court only when there exists any power therefor. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994] 4 SCC 225 this Court has held that having regard to the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, ·the consumer courts do not have any power to issue injunction. The jurisdiction to issue an order of injunction, appointment E of a r~ceiver or to pass an order of attachment before attachment would, therefore, depend upon the scheme of the statute and the powers conferred on the Court thereby. This may be one of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration for making a distinction between a supplemental proceedings and incidental proceedings. F A court or a tribunal entitled to adjudicate upon an issue arising in a tis between the parties has the requisite jurisdiction to pass orders which are incidental thereto so as to enable it to effectively adjudicate the. same. Such a power of a Court or a Tribunal to do all things necessary to effectively adjudicate upon the lis need not, in other words, be specifically conferred by the statute; such power being ancillary to the power of the court. It is adjunct G to the court's/tribunal's power of adjudication. The Code of Civil Procedure uses different expressions in relation to incidental proceedings and supplemental proceedings. Incidental proceedings are referred to in· Part Ill of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas Supplemental H Proceedings are referred to in Part VI thereof. VAREED JACOB v. SOSAMMA GEEVARGHESE [SINHA, J.] 549 Is there any difference between the two types of proceedings? A A distinction is to be borne in mind keeping in view the fact that the incidental proceedings are in aid to the final proceedings. In other words an order passed in the incidental proceedings will have a direct bearing on th~ result of the suit. Such proceedings which are in aid of the final proceedings cannot, thus, be held to be at par with supplemental proceedings which may B not have anything to do with the ultimate result of the suit. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse to as a routine matter but only when an exigency arises C therefor.