JUDGMENT
G.D. Kamat, J.
1. This appeal challenges the order of the trial court by which an application for injunction filed by the appellant is rejected on the matter of the suit is for recovery of money and, therefore, Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is not attracted.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved, what need be stated is that the appellant, State Bank of India, advanced a loan to the respondents and as a security therefor, the first respondent mortgaged their machinery, equipment, raw materials, in favour of that bank, at the same time agreeing to repay the loan advanced in a certain manner.
3. The respondents having committed a breach with regard to repayment, the State Bank of India was perforced to file a suit for recovery of Rs.3,91,230.58 which was institute in or about July, 1987. On institution of the suit, the State Bank apprehended that the respondents may do away with the assets mortgaged in its favour and, therefore, sought an injunction restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating or shifting the machinery, raw materials, etc. The learned judge, on misdirecting himself that the suit being a suit for recovery of money, though that, under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, he could not grant the injunction sought for by the bank. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the injunction sought for under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code was not available to the bank, the undeniable fact is that having regard to the recovery of a large amount sought as against the respondents, there are ample provisions on which the learned trial judge could have rested upon. The learned judge would do well to refer to section 94 of the Civil Procedure Code which gives ample powers to grant injunctions or to make such other interlocutory orders which may appear to be just and necessary even if Order 39 is not applicable. section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can also be applied when the circumstances of the case justify an order to protect the interest of a party. It is needless to mention that the State Bank of India is a Government bank which, having advanced money to the respondents, is liable to be protected. It cannot be forgotten that the money advanced to the respondents is the property belonging to the depositors of the bank. On all these considerations, therefore, the impugned order dated August 10, 1987, cannot be allowed to stand.
4. The impugned order made by the trial court amounted to dismissing the application in limine. The trial court is directed to now consider the prayer of the petitioner bank and to make an appropriate order and issue notice to the respondents to show cause against the same and decide the application for injunction on merits without getting influenced by the observations made. Until the application is decided, the respondents are restrained from alienating transferring, deposing of or creating any encumbrance on the assets mortgaged in favour of the appellant-bank.
5. Appeal succeeds. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.