BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff, who is respondent 1 before us, filed an application under the provisions of O. 39, Civil P. C. , praying for a temporary mandatory injunction against defendant 1, who is respondent 2 before us and a temporary prohibitory injunction against defendant 2, who is the appellant before us. The trial court issued notices to the defendants to show cause as to why such injunctions shall not be granted, but refused the prayer for ad interim injunction. ( 2 ) WITHIN a week thereafter defendant 1 appeared and prayed for time to file his show cause. The plaintiff has then filed another application under the provisions of S. 94 of the Code renewing his prayer for ad interim injunction against defendant 1 and on consent of both the parties, the trial Court has allowed the application under S. 94 of the Code and has granted ad interim injunction "till the final disposal of the application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. " and has stated in the impugned order that "the petition under S. 94, C. P. C. , be thus disposed of". ( 3 ) IT seems that the trial Court in refusing ad interim injunction under an application labelled as one under O. 39 of the Code and thereafter in granting ad interim injunction on an application purporting to be under s. 94 of the Code "till the final disposal of the application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. ", proceeded under the impression that the Code clothes the Courts with two sources of power to grant temporary injunction, one under S. 94 of the Code and the other under O. 39 of the Code. The impression is wholly erroneous as would appear from a bare perusal of the provisions of S. 94 (c) of the Code whereunder the Court may grant a temporary injunction only "if it is so prescribed". The expression "prescribed" in S. 94 would obviously mean, as defined in S. 2 (16) of the Code, "prescribed by Rules". The Rules which prescribe grant of temporary injunction are R. 1 and R. 2 of O. 39 and, therefore, a temporary injunction may be granted under S. 94 (c) only if a case satisfying the requirements of Rr. 1 and 2, O. 39 is made out. The Rules which prescribe grant of temporary injunction are R. 1 and R. 2 of O. 39 and, therefore, a temporary injunction may be granted under S. 94 (c) only if a case satisfying the requirements of Rr. 1 and 2, O. 39 is made out. As already noted not that the Court has two sources of power, one under S. 94 (c) and another under O. 39 of the Code and may resort to one or the other as and when necessary, but that under the Code the Court grants temporary injunction only under one set of provisions, namely, S. 94 (c) read with O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code. It is true that, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 , a Court can grant temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers also, but there it does not grant it under any power conferred by the Code but under powers inhering in its very constitution which are saved by and under S. 151 of the Code. The words "a temporary injunction granted under the last preceding Section" in S. 95 of the Code indicate that temporary injunction is granted under the provisions of S. 94, but the words "any injunction granted. . . under R. 1 or R. 2" in R. 2a of O. 39 may give rise to the impression that a temporary injunction may be granted independently under the provisions of O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 also. But, as already indicated, under the Code a temporary injunction can be granted only under one set of provisions namely, under S. 94 (c) read with O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) BOTH the applications for ad interim/temporary injunctions must, therefore, be treated as applications under S. 94 (c) read with O. 39 of the Code, even though the first one was labelled as one under O. 39 only and the second one as one under S. 94 only. The net question, therefore, is that if a Court has refused ad interim injunction and has only issued notice to show cause on an application for temporary injunction, can it, on a subsequent application, grant ad interim injunction till the disposal of the earlier application for temporary injunction. The net question, therefore, is that if a Court has refused ad interim injunction and has only issued notice to show cause on an application for temporary injunction, can it, on a subsequent application, grant ad interim injunction till the disposal of the earlier application for temporary injunction. A temporary injunction may, as it very often does, consist of two stages, one granted without finally disposing of the application for injunction to operate immediately till the disposal of the said application and the other granted while finally disposing of the main application to enure generally till the disposal of the suit and while the former is generally classed as ad interim injunction, the latter is generally called temporary injunction. Neither on principle nor on authority we find any bar to the Courts granting ad interim injunction till the disposal of the application for the temporary injunction, if subsequent developments or altered circumstances warrant such grant, even though it has refused to grant the same earlier on the materials then on record. If, however, the materials on record stand as they stood when the ad interim injunction was refused earlier, a grant of ad interim injunction on such materials may not be permissible as that might amount to impermissible review of the earlier order. ( 5 ) THE second application for ad interim injunction, labelled as one under S. 94 of the Code, has been avowedly made, as stated in Para 6 thereof, on the ground of "further developments" and "altered circumstances" and those developments and circumstances have been stated in details in Para 4 of the application. The materials on record did not, therefore, stand where they stood when the ad interim injunction was refused on the earlier application. In granting the ad interim injunction on such further developments and altered circumstances, the learned Judge does not appear to have committed any error to justify any interference, particularly at this stage, when the main application for injunction is still awaiting his final adjudication. The net position, therefore, is that on the two applications for interlocutory injunctions taken together, one labelled as under O. 39 and the other as under S. 94, the trial Court has issued notice to show cause why the application for temporary injunction shall not be granted and has also granted ad interim injunction till the disposal of that application. The net position, therefore, is that on the two applications for interlocutory injunctions taken together, one labelled as under O. 39 and the other as under S. 94, the trial Court has issued notice to show cause why the application for temporary injunction shall not be granted and has also granted ad interim injunction till the disposal of that application. It would be now for the defendants to file show cause and for the learned trial Judge to decide as to whether this is a fit case for the grant of temporary injunction as prayed for and the learned Judge must do so, as expeditiously as possible, without being in any way influenced by the fact that we are dismissing this appeal against the order of ad interim injunction and also by the observations, if any, made by us as to the merits of the case relating to temporary injunction. ( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. ( 7 ) NAYAK, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.