Judgment Mohit S. Shah, J.—This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2000 of the learned Joint Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch, rejecting application (Exh. 42) of the petitioner herein - original defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are as under:— The respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 429 of 1998 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch against the present petitioner praying for a permanent injunction that the plaintiff may not be dispossessed of the truck bearing registration No. GJ-16-U 6536. The plaintiff had taken the truck under an arrangement made by the petitioner - Finance Company which agreed to finance the payment of the purchase price of the truck and obtained security rights under the hire purchase agreement. On the ground that the plaintiff had committed defaults in payment of installments, the petitioner tried to take over possession of the truck from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit giving rise to this petition and also filed application (Exh. 5) for interim injunction restraining the defendant (the petitioner herein) from taking over possession of the truck in question from the plaintiff. The trial Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 9.12.1998 and thereafter passed order dated 22.4.1999 confirming the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier after indicating that the truck was the only source of livelihood for the plaintiff and that from the income generated by plying the truck, the plaintiff was depositing the installments with the defendant and that if the truck is taken away from the plaintiff, the plaintiff will not be able to pay the installment amounts to the defendant. The trial Court also recorded that the plaintiff was paying the installments, but irregularly. But if the truck is taken away, the plaintiff will not be able to pay any installment to the defendant. On the other hand, if the truck remains with the plaintiff, the plaintiff will be in a position to pay installment amounts to the defendant. The trial Court accordingly confirmed the ex-parte ad-interim relief directing the defendant to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the defendant filed application (Exh. 42) on 8.12.1999 praying for vacating the interim order dated 22.4.1999 or to modify the same. The trial Court accordingly confirmed the ex-parte ad-interim relief directing the defendant to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the defendant filed application (Exh. 42) on 8.12.1999 praying for vacating the interim order dated 22.4.1999 or to modify the same. The defendant stated that while directing the defendant to maintain status quo, the trial Court had not exonerated the plaintiff of his liability to pay regular installments under the hire purchase agreement, but the plaintiff was not paying the installments regularly and as on the date of filing the application (8.12.1999), the plaintiff owed to the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,30,204/-. However, on the one hand, the plaintiff was not paying the installments to the defendant and on the other hand, the defendant was not in a position to exercise its powers under the agreement. Hence, the defendant prayed before the trial Court to vacate the interim order dated 22.4.1999 or to modify the same so that the plaintiff would be required to pay the installments to the defendant. By the impugned order dated 7.4.2000, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the interim injunction application was already decided by order dated 22.4.1999. The defendant had not alleged any breach of the injunction order dated 22.4.1999, that the order dated 22.4.1999 was appealable and, therefore, the trial Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC. 3. Both the learned advocates have also brought it to the notice of the Court that Regular Civil Suit No. 429 of 1998 filed by plaintiff - Abdul Aziz Abdul Hamid Shaikh has already been dismissed and, therefore, it is also submitted by Mr. Pandya, that the petition itself has become infructuous. 4. Mr. T.S. Nanavati for the petitioner (original defendant) has, however, submitted that in the body of the order dated 22.4.1999 the trial Court had clearly mentioned that the defendant should not take over possession of the truck so that the plaintiff can continue to pay installments to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant was justified in moving the trial Court with a prayer to vacate or modify the interim injunction. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in not entertaining the application on the ground that the order dated 22.4.1999 was appealable and, therefore, the present application Exh. 42 was not maintainable. Therefore, the defendant was justified in moving the trial Court with a prayer to vacate or modify the interim injunction. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in not entertaining the application on the ground that the order dated 22.4.1999 was appealable and, therefore, the present application Exh. 42 was not maintainable. It is submitted that the prayer in the Finance Company’s application was more in the nature of a prayer for clarification and not for rehearing. It is submitted that if such applications are not entertained, the Finance Companies would be seriously prejudiced. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent states that he has no instructions in the matter and has supported the order of the trial Court. It is submitted that the respondent - defendant’s remedy was to challenge the order dated 22.4.1999 in appeal from order within the period of limitation and the defendant having failed to do so, it was not open to get the interim order dated 22.4.1999 vacated or modified. 6. In view of the fact that the Civil Suit itself has been dismissed, it is obvious that the controversy about the interim arrangement to be made during pendency of the suit would not survive and, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. But, having heard the learned advocates for the parties, the Court finds considerable substance in the grievance voiced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner - Company. The Court cannot help observing that the trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by not entertaining application (Exh. 42) wherein the defendant had merely requested the trial Court to vacate or modify the interim relief dated 22.4.1999 on the ground that the plaintiff was not paying the installments as per the hire purchase agreement. It was not necessary for the defendant to challenge the said order dated 22.4.1999 in appeal because it was specifically indicated in the body of the order itself that the defendant should not take over physical possession of the truck from the plaintiff, otherwise the plaintiff would not be able to pay the installments to the defendant Company and that only if the truck remains with the plaintiff, the plaintiff can ply the same for its business and from the income so generated, the plaintiff would be in a position to pay the installments to the defendant. The very basis or foundation of the interim order dated 22.4.1999 was, therefore, the continuing liability of the plaintiff to pay the installment amounts as per the hire purchase agreement. Merely because the trial Court had granted injunction requiring the defendant to maintain status quo and thereby restraining the defendant from taking physical possession of the truck, the liability of the plaintiff to continue to pay installments as per the hire purchase agreement did not come to an end. It, however, appears that though the plaintiff was paying the installments atleast irregularly before the interim order, he stopped paying the installments altogether after obtaining the interim order. This would certainly amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Section 151 CPC reads as under :— “151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” The petitioner - Company was, therefore, justified in requesting the trial Court to modify the interim order by imposing a condition that the plaintiff shall continue to pay installments as per the agreement. 7. The Court has been constrained to make the above observations only to highlight the fact that the very basis of the interim order dated 22.4.1999 was to see that the truck remains with the plaintiff so that from the income generated by plying the truck, the plaintiff would be in a position to pay installments to the defendant Company, that liability did not come to an end and, therefore, if the defendant made an application before the trial Court to incorporate such a condition in the interim order, the trial Court did have the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 151 of the CPC to incorporate such a condition expressly which was already impliedly indicated in the body of the order. This could never amount to rehearing the matter or sitting in appeal over the previous order. 8. Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed of as infructuous. Rule is discharged. A copy of this order shall be circulated to all the Civil Courts in the State.