All the above civil revisions are directed against a common judgment and order dated 16.1.95 passed by the 2nd Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, dismissing all the four misc. appeals (Misc. Appeal Nos. 13 of 1982,14 of 1982, 16 of 1982 and 17 of 1982) and affirming the common order dated 3.4.82 passed by the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati, in Title Suit Nos. 174 of 1981,175 of 1981,177 of 1981 and 178 of 1981. By the said order the Munsiff refused to grant temporary injunction on the ground that there was no prima facie case. 2. All the revision petitions involve common questions of law and similar facts, therefore, I propose to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment and order. 3. The petitioners instituted four title suits in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati, seeking declaration of their tenancy right in respect of portions of the house under their respective occupation fully described in the schedule to the plaints and also for declaration that the order dated 6.1.78 and 9.1.78 passed in Money Suit No. 11 of 1971 by the Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, was nullity in the eye of law and was not binding against them. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-opposite party from ejecting them from possession of their respective portions of the house under their occupation, etc. Along with the plaints, the petitioners also filed applications for temporary injunction. 4. The case of the petitioners, as will appear from the plaints is as follows: The defendants-opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 were the members of a Joint Hindu Family and the defendant-opposite party No. 1 as Karta of the family used to manage the properties of the joint family. The joint family also let out some portions of the house to the tenants through the Karta Satyendra Nath Sen and used to collect rent from the tanants. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) along with proforma defendantNo.5 (opposite party No.5) carried on a partnership business under the name and style of Assam Trading Corporation. Satyendra Nath Sen, Karta of the joint family (opposite party No. I) inducted the petitioners in various portions of the house as monthly tanants and since then they had been in occupation of the said portions of the house as tanants and had been carrying on their business. Satyendra Nath Sen, Karta of the joint family (opposite party No. I) inducted the petitioners in various portions of the house as monthly tanants and since then they had been in occupation of the said portions of the house as tanants and had been carrying on their business. The 2nd opposite party as a partner of the said firm instituted a suit (Money Suit No. 11 of 1971) against other partners for dissolution and for rendition of accounts. The said suit was pending in the Court of the 2nd Assistant District Judge, Guwahati. In the said suit he filed an application for permission to sell all the furniture and for delivery of possession of the house to the 1 st opposite party (defendant) for reconstruction of the house by evicting the petitioners from the suit premises. Petitioners filed objections against the prayer of the opposite party No.2 (defendant No.2). They stated that they had been in occupation of their respective portions of the house as tenants by paying rent. The Assistant District Judge, however, by order dated 18.8.77 allowed the prayer by permitting sale of the goods, but rejected the prayer for eviction of the petitioners. Prayer for review of the said order was also rejected. The 2nd opposite party Amalendu Sen again filed an application in the said suit for delivery of possession of the house with the help of armed force for the purpose of reconstruction of the house by demolition of the same. Stay applications were filed by the petitioner on the ground that they had been occupying the said portions of the house for several years and had been carrying on their business therein. Thereafter, the Assistant District Judge passed order dated 6.1.78 to the effect that petitioner Banamali Sengupta could occupy the room in the varandah in his possession if it was possible for him to stay after demolition of the said house. Petitioners approached this Court by filing a revision (Civil Revision No.4 of 1978) against the aforesaid order dated 6.1.78. This revision was dismissed by this Court on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Later on, an order was obtained for taking delivery of possession of the house including varandah with the help of armed force by demolishing the house where the petitioners had been staying. This revision was dismissed by this Court on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Later on, an order was obtained for taking delivery of possession of the house including varandah with the help of armed force by demolishing the house where the petitioners had been staying. The landlord, thereafter, made attempts to drive out the tenants from the rooms under their occupation by playing fraud and trick. They obtained order in that regard on 6.1.78 and 9.1.78. On the strength of the said orders they wanted to take possession of the house. Therefore, the petitioners instituted the Title Suit Nos. 174 of 1981,175 of 1981,177 of 1981 and 178 of 1981 in the Court of Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati seeking declaration and injunction. Applications were also filed praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party defendants from evicting the petitioners from the rooms in the varandah of the house by demolishing it. According to the petitioners the orders dated 6.1.78 and 9.1.78 passed in Money Suit No. 11 of 1971 by the Assistant District Judge No.2, Guwahati are nullity as the said orders were obtained by playing fraud. The petitioners further stated that the Assistant District Judge had no jurisdiction and authority to evict the lawful tenants bypassing those orders in the money suit and that too behind the back of the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges as tenants under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and also under the provisions of law. They accordingly sought declaration of their tenancy right and also permanent injunction. According to the petitioners they have strong prima facie case to go into the trial and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. If the petitioners during the pendency of the said suit are evicted they will suffer irreparable loss. The Sadar Munsiff granted ad-interim injunction by order dated 21.11.81 restraining the opposite party-defendants, their agents, employees, etc. from evicting the petitioners-plaintiffs from the rooms under their respective occupation. The opposite party filed objection against the order of temporary injunction. The Munsiff after hearing the parties, however, did not make ad-interim injunction absolute. The orders of injunction earlier granted were vacated by order dated 3.4.82. from evicting the petitioners-plaintiffs from the rooms under their respective occupation. The opposite party filed objection against the order of temporary injunction. The Munsiff after hearing the parties, however, did not make ad-interim injunction absolute. The orders of injunction earlier granted were vacated by order dated 3.4.82. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3.4.82 passed by the Sadar Munsiff in the aforesaid title suit, preferred appeals before the Assistant District Judge No.2, Guwahati. The appeals were, however, 'dismissed after hearing the parties by a common judgment dated 16.1.95. Being aggrieved by common judgment and orders dated 16.1.95 passed in Misc. Appeal Nos.13 of 1982, 14 of 1982,16 of 1982 and 17 of 1982, the present revision petitions have been filed. 5.1 heard both sides. 6. Mr. DN Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by refusing to grant injunction on the ground that there was no prima facie case to go into the trial of the suits. Mr. Chowdhury further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case indicated strong prima facie case in respect of the suits to go into trial. The order passed in Money Suit No. 11 of 1971 filed by opposite party No.2 Amalendu Sen against opposite party No.5 - Sudhir Ranjan Bose, opposite party No.6 - Ashit Ranjan Bose, opposite party No. 1 SatyendraNath Sen and four others was illegal, without jurisdiction and in fact non-est and, therefore, the Courts below acted illegally and with material irregularity in refusing to grant injunction. Therefore the said order was liable to be set aside. Mr. Chowdhury further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case granting of injunction was necessary. 7. Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. Nobody appeared on behalf of other opposite party. 8.1 have perused the records also. Question now falls for determination in these petitions is whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases, refusal to grant injunction was justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. According to the petitioners they have been tenants of the rooms under their respective occupation. 8.1 have perused the records also. Question now falls for determination in these petitions is whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases, refusal to grant injunction was justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. According to the petitioners they have been tenants of the rooms under their respective occupation. The Money Suit No. 11 of 1971 was filed by Amalendu Sen, opposite party No.2 praying, amongst others, for dissolution of the partnership firm after settlement of accounts and also for rendition of accounts of partnership business. In the said suit plaintiff Amalendu Sen also prayed for appointment of receiver. Written statements were filed by defendant Nos.l, 2, 5 and 6. In the said suit there was no prayer for eviction of the petitioners-plaintiffs from the portions of the house they had been in possession as tenants. They were also not made party. However, during the pendency of the suit applications were filed for order to evict the petitioners-plaintiffs. On coming to know about the prayer, the petitioners filed objections. The 2nd Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, in his order dated 18.8.77 observed as follows : “The proforma defendant No.3 also prays for getting vacant possession of the suit premises after sale of the remaining articles of the partnership firm in auction. The suit is pending in the appellate Court in connection with some miscellaneous appeal which is being disposed of shortly. So the matter of handling (sic) over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the proforma defendant No.2 will be considered after the record is received from the appellate Court.” Thereafter, the 2nd Assistant District Judge by another order dated 11.10.77 observed that the petitioner Banamali Sengupta filed a petition and also produced an electric supply bill for period from 25.8.77 to 24.9.77. He held that the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to enjoy the portion of the premises then under his possession till he was evicted therefrom in due course of law. He, however, observed that if any inconvenience had been caused to the petitioner due to blocking of the entrance of the premises, that should have to be restored to the extent necessary or entrance of the petitioner in the portion of the premises under his possession. He, however, observed that if any inconvenience had been caused to the petitioner due to blocking of the entrance of the premises, that should have to be restored to the extent necessary or entrance of the petitioner in the portion of the premises under his possession. Thereafter, by order dated 8.12.77 in the aforesaid Money Suit o. 1 of 1971,the learned Assistant District Judge No.2 allowed the prayer for handing over possession to the landlord and directed the Nazir to hand over possession of the house to Amalendu Sen, opposite party No.2. The Assistant District Judge No.2, thereafter, allowed demolition of the house, however, allowing Banamali Sengupta to stay in the portion under his occupation, if possible. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it would be impossible for the petitioner Banamali Sengupta to stay in the portion under his occupation if the whole house is demolished. 10. Admittedly the order for demolition of the house and taking over possession was passed in money suit in which the petitioners were not parties. Though they filed objections these were not considered. A revision petition was moved which was dismissed. In the present suits they claimed their tenancy right and prayed for a decree declaring their tenancy rights. Averments made in the plaints are yet to be considered and proved. The entire matter is to be enquired into at the time of trial. If the averments are found to be correct, definitely the petitioners are entitled to occupy the portions now under their occupation as tenants they are evicted in due course of law. If they are tenants no order of eviction can be passed in money suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. The petitioners were also not made party in the said suit. In my opinion, there is a prima facie case to go into trial. 11. Injunction can be granted by a Court on the existence of three conditions namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Absence of any of the conditions, however, will disentitle a person to get order of injunction. It is also settled law that normally there cannot be an injunction against the execution of a lawfully obtained decree. 11. Injunction can be granted by a Court on the existence of three conditions namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Absence of any of the conditions, however, will disentitle a person to get order of injunction. It is also settled law that normally there cannot be an injunction against the execution of a lawfully obtained decree. This can be done only when the petitioner seeking injunction prima facie shows that the decree was obtained by practising fraud because execution of a lawfully obtained decree cannot be an injury within the meaning of Order 39. But it is also a settled position that when a decree or any order is obtained without the jurisdiction, the Court has inherent power to grant injunction. The provision of Code of Civil Procedure are not exhaustive for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them. In certain cases the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in the circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There being no such expression in section 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injuction in circumstances not covered by Order 39. However, if a particular case comes within the scope of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the Court may not exercise the inherent power. Inherent power of the Court can be used for the ends of justice. 12. In the present cases an order was obtained by Shri Amalendu Sen for dismantling the house the varandah of which the petitioners occupied as tenants as averred. The order was passed without impleading the petitioners and that too the order was passed in a money suit seeking a decree for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and appointment of receiver. In my opinion, such order may not be binding on the petitioners though they casually appeared before the Court which passed the said order. The petitioners, in the said suits had specifically stated that they had been occupying the portions of the house as tenants. These averments, from the record it appears, have not been controverted by filing written statement. The matter is yet to be decided in the trial. The petitioners, in the said suits had specifically stated that they had been occupying the portions of the house as tenants. These averments, from the record it appears, have not been controverted by filing written statement. The matter is yet to be decided in the trial. Therefore, in my opinion, definitely there is a prima facie case to go into trial. If the order is executed pending disposal of the suits, the petitioners will be thrown out of the said house which will cause great hardship and irreparable loss. The balance of conveniences also favours maintenance of the present position till disposal of the suits. 13. In view of the above, I am of opinion, that the Courts below erred in law by holding that there is no prima facie case in the suits. Accordingly, I set aside the said order and issue injunction to the defendants-opposite party restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. The opposite party shall not do anything which may disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners pending disposal of their suits. 14. With the above observations and directions the petitions are allowed. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs. 16. Before parting with the record I am constrained to observe that the suits are pending since 1981. Records of the cases do not indicate that the opposite party filed their written statement in the suits. It is really sorry state of affairs that so much of time is wasted without any advancement of the suits. Accordingly, I direct the trial Court to dispose of all the suits within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. If necessary, the trial Court shall take up the matter day to day. The opposite party shall file written statement within a month from today.