JUDGMENT There is nothing in order 39, rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. which prohibits grant of temporary injunction in cases not covered by the provisions therein. Similarly there is no expression in section 94 of C.P.C. which expressly prohibits the issue of temporary injunction in the circumstances not covered by order 39 or by any rules made under the Code. Thus, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of order 39 of C.P.C., if the Court is of opinion that the interest of justice required the issue of such interim injunction. Learned counsel for the appellants thereafter has referred a case reported in 1981 JLJ 515 (Anil kwnarv. Kashinath and others) and submitted that the Court could not have granted an injunction in the case. The following observations in the last portion of paragaph 7 of the judgment referred is relevant for this case "The power to issue temporary injunction is conferred on the Courts by section 94 read with order 39, rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The Courts have also inherent power to issue temporary injunction on an appropriate case being made out." In view of the above, this case also does not help the counsel for the appellants. Now it has to be seen as to whether the facts of the necessitated grant of injunction or whether the inherent jurisdiction has been exercised improperly and illegally. The plaintiffs have filed promissory-note signed by Chimanbhai Patel. The plaintiffs are Nationalised Bank. it is the public money which they are dealing with. It appears nothing has been paid out of the loan amount and that is why the suit for recovery of the amount granted as loan plus interest thereon has been filed. It is not disputed that the appellants and the respondents No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Chimanbhai Patel who is dead regarding ownership of Chimanbhai Patal (borrower who is dead) the defendants have pleaded that he was not the sole owner but the joint ownership of any other brother of Chimanbhai has neither been pleaded nor proved by affidavit. Only the defendants are in possession of the house. The loan taken by Chimanbhai Patel can be recovered only from the property owned by him and inherited by defendants. Only the defendants are in possession of the house. The loan taken by Chimanbhai Patel can be recovered only from the property owned by him and inherited by defendants. If the house referred above is disposed of, the plaintiff would not be in a position to recover the money from the defendants as no other extreme action can be taken against them and nor their personal property, not related to the ownership of Chimanbhai Patel, can be attached in execution of the decree. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the discretion of the Court in exercise of inherent powers for granting the temporary injunction has rightly been exercised. There is neither any illegality nor impropriety in the impugned order. AIR 1962 SC 527 and 1981 JLJ 515 relied on. Appeal dismissed.