JUDGMENT : A. Misra, A.C.J. 1. Plaintiff is the Petitioner. This revision is directed, against an order rejecting an application u/s 151, CPC for issuing an injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with Ex. Case No. 28 of 1971 on the file of the Munsif, Puri. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : Opp. party who is the landlord filed Misc. Case No. 7 of 1968 against the Petitioner, his tenant, under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act for eviction on the ground that the latter defaulted in payment of rent. The Misc. Case was allowed and eviction was ordered. Against this order, the Petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1970 which was dismissed, and thereafter, he filed a writ which was registered as O.J.C. No. 314 of 1971 and ultimately withdrawn. Thereafter, the landlord, opp. party levied execution of the House Rent Control order in Ex. Case No. 28 of 1971. In the said execution case, opposite party raised an objection u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order of the House Rent Controller as one passed without jurisdiction which was registered as Miso. Case No. 182 of 1971. The said Misc. Case was dismissed and against the order he preferred an appeal which was registered as Misc. A. No. 50 of 1971 with no better result. Thereafter, he filed O.S. No. 69 of 1971. In that suit, he alleged that the order of the House Rent Controller was not and void on the ground that the said order was passed without jurisdiction and also claimed a permanent tenancy in respect of the disputed house. During the pendency of this suit, he filed an application u/s 151, CPC for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit which was rejected. The said order is under challenge in the present revision. 3. The following points have been urged by learned Course) for Petitioner : (1) The Patna Amendment to Order 39, Rule 1, Civil, Procedure Code fetters the jurisdiction of the Court in granting a temporary injunction in contravention of Section 56 of the old Specific Relief Act corresponding to Section 41 of the new Act. 3. The following points have been urged by learned Course) for Petitioner : (1) The Patna Amendment to Order 39, Rule 1, Civil, Procedure Code fetters the jurisdiction of the Court in granting a temporary injunction in contravention of Section 56 of the old Specific Relief Act corresponding to Section 41 of the new Act. This amendment, however, does not affect the inherent powers of the Court u/s 151, CPC to grant a temporary injunction in appropriate oases and (2) the Petitioner has a strong prima facie case, particularly when he claims a permanent tenancy under a compromise entered into a previous proceeding, and further from paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is clear that there was no default in payment of rent which would give jurisdiction to the House Rent Controller to pass an order for eviction under the said Act. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal. In that case, it was held that in circumstances not covered by Order 39, CPC or by any rules made under the Code, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction, if the Court is of opinion that the interest of justice requires the issue of such temporary injunction. In the present case, it is stated by learned Counsel for Petitioner that he does not seek for a temporary injunction grounds or circumstances mentioned in Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. The Patna Amendment to Order 39 Rule 1, CPC also refers to 'such temporary injunction' which necessarily means temporary injunction sought in circumstances contemplated in Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. The application here is for grant of a temporary injunction under the Court's inherent powers as the circumstances mentioned do not come within the purview of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion, there is some force in this contention. 5. The Patna amendment to Order 39 Rule 1, CPC seems to fetter the discretion of the Court only in respect of injunctions prayed for in circumstances contemplated in that provision. In my opinion, there is some force in this contention. 5. The Patna amendment to Order 39 Rule 1, CPC seems to fetter the discretion of the Court only in respect of injunctions prayed for in circumstances contemplated in that provision. When the grounds mentioned in the present case are not covered by Order 39, CPC strictly speaking, there may be no bar for the Court to exercise inherent powers in granting a temporary injunction provided the interest of justice requires the issue of the same. 6. Even though the Court is not debarred from granting temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers, it is next to be seen whether on the facts of this case, it can be said that interest of justice requires grant of such an injunction. The facts clearly show that the order passed under the House Rent Control Act has become final, and even the attempt of the Petitioner to get it quashed by invoking the prerogative injunction of the Court has become in fructuous. Subsequently, in the execution proceeding, he also filed petition u/s 47, CPC objecting to the excitability of the decree on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction and the same was dismissed both by the executing Court and in appeal. This order has the force of a decree which is binding. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has a prima facie case to justify grant of temporary injunction. It is argued by learned Counsel for Petitioner that the order of the House Rent Controller directing eviction on the basis that there was default in payment of rent is without jurisdiction as in fact there was no default given assuming it to be so, it cannot be said that the order was without jurisdiction. At the worst, it will only amount to a wrong decision. The errors contemplated u/s 115, CPC which would justify interference in revision refer to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision and not to errors either of fact or law after the prescribed formalities in the matter of procedure have been complied with. Therefore, even if on facts an error has been committed it will amount to only an erroneous decision and will not justify interference in revision. Therefore, even if on facts an error has been committed it will amount to only an erroneous decision and will not justify interference in revision. Considered from any point of view, it cannot be said that this is 8 fit case where in the interest of justice the inherent powers of the Court u/s 151, CPC should be exercised and further there are no valid grounds for interference in revision in exercise of powers u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed with costs.