Have you ever considered what might happen if someone attempted to destroy or
infringe on your building or property? What are the possible claims you might
submit to the appropriate court to prevent the damage or infringement of your
property? A temporary injunction is a judgment or order issued by a court
against one or several of the sides to refrain from undertaking, or less
commonly to perform, the certain stipulated act or deeds.
If someone goes to the Appropriate Tribunal for an Injunction Order, will the
Tribunal approve all of that individual's claims? The process of obtaining an
injunction, on the other hand, is to change or preserve the "status quo," which
is entirely dependent on the circumstances or complaints of the case. The
parties to the litigation might seek a Temporary, Fixed, or Compulsory
Nevertheless, it is not a privilege of the plaintiffs, but an
injunction is part of the equitable remedies that the Appropriate Court may
give, and the judgment is arbitrary. Let us look at what the word "injunction
means in the Specific Relief Act and how it is used in the Code of Civil
Order 39: Temporary Injunctions:
What exactly refers to a temporary injunction?
Temporary injunctions are addressed under Section 37, Specific Relief Act of
1963. Temporary injunctions are in effect for a certain period of moment or till
the court makes another ruling. They are authorized at either stage of a lawsuit
and are controlled by the Civil Procedure Code (1908).
The basic rationale for imposing an injunction is to safeguard a person's or
property's interests in the case till the ultimate verdict is made.
following factors are taken into account while imposing such an injunction:
- whenever a side has a prima facie lawsuit?
- If the proportion of advantage favors the complainant?
- Is it conceivable that the claimant might experience irreversible injury
before the judgement is issued?
The period of that kind of an injunction is determined by the court. In the case
of Union of India v. Bhuvneshwar Prasad
, this type of injunction was also
The following are some instances of Civil Procedure Code situations when a
temporary injunction may be granted:
- When any property in question in a dispute is probable to be wasted,
damaged, or diverted by one of the litigants, or illegally disposed in
enforcement of a ruling; or
- Whenever the respondent intends to evacuate or dispose his property in
attempt to deceive his creditors; or
- To prevent the defendant from violating a contract or inflicting any
other injury in all circumstances;
- Whenever, according to the Specific Relief Act Sections 38 and 41,
no persistent or mandatory injunction may be granted;
- Where to stay, the execution of a sequence for the transmission,
revocation, rank reduction, obligatory superannuation, rejection, expulsion,
or other cessation of offering of any individual assigned to public service
and publish in linkage with Affairs of state, such as any person employed of
any corporation or company-owned or governed by the State Government;
- Whenever to halt any current or planned disciplinary measures against
any person allocated to the government service and to publish in conjunction
with the State's business, comprising any employee of a company possessed or
managed by the State's government; or to restrict any election;
- Any injunction imposed in contravention of these provisions shall be
null and void.
- Except in cases where the aim of obtaining the injunction would seem to
be defeated by the lag even once the injunction is issued, the Court shall
give the adverse party with immediate notice of the request:
- Provided, however, that if an injunction is requested to be granted
without notice to the opposing party, the Court notes the grounds for its
belief that delay would undermine the aim of issuing the injunction and
requires the applicant to:
- immediately after the ruling issuing the injunction, give to or convey to
the other party by registered mail,
- a copy of the injunction request, as well as a copy of an affidavit in
favor of the request;
- a copy of a complaint; and
- a copy of the petitioner's supporting documentation;
- Must file an affidavit stating that the aforementioned copies were
delivered and mailed on the date such injunction is imposed or a day
immediately following that day.
The court must, however, rule on such cases within thirty days after issuing an
injunction, and if it is unable to do so, it must explain why.
If a party makes a false or deceptive statement inside a request for just a
temporary injunction or an affidavit supporting such a request, the Civil
Procedure Code further specifies that the Court may dismiss, vary, or set aside
the order at the request of every party who is unsatisfied with the decision.
Further, where an injunction has been issued after one party has been afforded a
chance to be heard, this same order cannot be discharged, diverse, or set aside
just at the request of that party unless the discharge, variation, and set-aside
has been required by a change of circumstances or even when the Court is
convinced that the order had also caused a certain party, difficulty as well as
An injunction issued against a business has the same legal force as if it were
issued directly against the individuals who are the company's members or
officers, thereby halting any and all of their individual acts.
According to the Civil Procedure Code, the following Injunctions between parties
were issued in relation to injunctions:The authority to order an interim sale:
The Court, upon the application of any party to a litigation, may order a sale
of any moveable property that forms the subject of a case or that is attached
prior to a judgement in a lawsuit, which really is prone to sudden and natural
decline, as to which may otherwise be lost or destroyed be desirable to be sold
off for any other just and sufficient reason.
Detention, preservation, examination, and so on of the lawsuit's subject
Following notification, an application for such orders will be made:
- A motion to dismiss may be filed by any participant in the proceedings
if the person so requests and the circumstances warrant deems appropriate,
the Court may:
- Issue ordaining the custody, storage, or inspection of any property
involved in the proceedings that may emerge as a result of them;
- Empower any such person to act for all or any of the aforementioned
- Approve the taking of samples, making of observations, or testing of
experiments for all or any of the aforementioned reasons that seem essential
or beneficial for acquiring complete data, proof, or proof of something.
- The regulations regulating procedures' actual carrying out must apply to
a person entitled to enter under this rule mutatis mutandis (with
appropriate changes but without altering the principal matter at issue).
When a party may be given instant control of land that is the subject of a
- A defendant may move for an order of protection under Rule 6
anywhere at any time after the complaint is filed.
- The defendant may apply at any point following its debut for a
- On to an application for an order under Rules 6 or 7, the Court
should give direct notice to an opposing party before issuing the order,
unless it appears that delaying the order will defeat its purpose.
If a lawsuit involves the party in ownership of property subject to government
revenue or a tenure able to sue to sale and the party throughout possession of
these land or tenure does not pay the Government income or even the rent due to
proprietor, as the instance may be, and the land as well as tenure has been
consequently ordered to be put up for sale, any other party to the lawsuit
asserting to have an involvement in these kind of land or tenure could, upon
payment of a revenue or rent due before the sale, purchase the land or tenure
from the government or the proprietor (an interim payment),
Deposit of money and other items in court:
If money or other deliverable property is at issue in a lawsuit, and one party
admits that this really holds such money, or other deliverable property as
trustee for another party, or claims that it belongs or is owed to that other
party, then the Court may order that such money or other deliverable property be
placed in court or delivered to the last-named party, together with or without
safety, subject to the terms of the judgement.
- Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee:
The Supreme Court has established the presumption of proof in prima
facie cases. It does not include complex issues of truth or law that
need extensive debate to resolve.
In addition, the Plaintiff must come to court without any dirt on his or her
hands. By concealing material facts and evidence, he forfeits his right to
injunctive relief, and the other reasons of convenience, irreparable loss, and
irreparable injury should be disregarded.
- In Prakash Singh v. State of Haryana, the court declared, "The Court has
explained that Prima Facie does not entail that a Plaintiff/Applicant must have
a complete proven case in his favour that would be victorious in all
likelihoods." It means that the applicant or plaintiff has a claim that can't be
dismissed easily. It draws attention to topics that may be the subject of
- It was held in the case of Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd.
vs. Satyanarayana Singh that showing the Plaintiff/Applicant has a plausible
claim enough to warrant a trial. Reasonable doubt about the existence of their
entitlement and the status quo must be maintained until the case is fully
Is there any irreversible harm: Furthermore, the petitioner must show that they
will be damaged irreparably if the injunction also isn't granted. The Court
agrees that the Plaintiff needs to be protected from any potential harm. If the
extent of the damage cannot be quantified in monetary terms, it will be deemed
However, unlike "irreparable," which implies the hurt can never be fixed,
"irreparable harm" means exactly the opposite. A bodily injury is assumed to be
the source of pain. To be more precise, the kind of losses for which monetary
damages would be inadequate. It is deemed irreparable if there is no clear
monetary standard by which damages may be determined.
- Just at stage of having to pass a temporary injunction order,
for instance on an application for grant of ad interlocutory
injunction under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39 of the Civil
Procedure Code, this same competent Court would likely have to form
its viewpoint on the availability of an initial case, the balance of
comfort, and the irreparable injury," as stated by the Supreme Court
in Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi
- In Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "yet, the settled principle of law is that even
where the prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse
temporary injunction if the plaintiff's injury suffered as a result of refusal
of temporary injunction which was not irreparable."
The applicant must show that the balance of convenience tips in their favour by
describing the injury, difficulty, or irritation they would face in the event
when the injunction was denied. The balance between convenience comes into play
when there is a question regarding whether one party or both have access to
adequate remedies in damages.
- The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court highlighted the question of balance of
convenience in Bikash Chandra Deb versus Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The Court
must give preference to the concept of convenience, but that does not mean that
the scales will necessarily tip in favour of one party. The parties need to find
a middle ground, but it can't be too one-sided.
- It was decided in Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra and Anr. 1995, that "balance
of convenience entails comparable damage or discomfort." It is possible that the
consequences of not issuing the injunction will be higher than those of
permitting it. Using this method, the Court will weigh the potential for serious
harm to the application, and the injunction is granted to the opposition party.'
Given the above, it is clear that no party has an absolute right to seek a
temporary injunction, and the Court cannot deny such a request without good
reason. Injunctive relief is a form of equitable redress that can be used to
precept "he who desires equity must do equity." The Court has broad power to
issue or deny an injunction.
The Court's discretion is demonstrated by the
aforementioned principles, and depends on the particulars of each instance. It
is not a right to the remedy, no matter how compelling the applicant's argument
is. The authority to issue an injunction must consequently be used with extreme
caution, monitoring, and care.
- Code of Civil Procedure by S.C. Sarkar and P.C. Sarkar, 12th edition
- CPC Approach of Trail Court by Adv. S.L. Deshpande and Adv. Jayant Jaibhave,
- mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.119(As%20Per%20Workshop% 20L is
- Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC
- a legal term or a legal claim which is made when the prosecution has
enough evidence to proceed with a trial of judgement and to prove that the defendant is
guilty. The term is derived from a Latin word which means, "at first sight" or
"at first view"
- Original Application No. 113 of 2004
- 38. Perpetual injunction when granted:
Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter,
a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach
of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication
- 41. Injunction when refused: An injunction cannot be granted:
- to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at
the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such
restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
- to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in
a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
- to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
- to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in
a criminal matter;
- to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not
be specifically enforced;
- to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not
reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
- to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
- when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other
usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
- when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to
disentitle him to the assistance of the court;
- when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter
- Order 39, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Order 39: Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- Order 39 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908: The authority to order an
- Order 39: Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Detention, preservation,
examination, and so on of the lawsuit's subject matter
- 1958 AIR 79 SCR 514
- 2002 (4) Civil L.J.71 (P.H.)
- Suit No. 132 of 1973
- Order 39, Rule 1 provides for cases in which temporary injunction may be
granted. (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or
otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in
dispute in the suit.
- Order 39 (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force
for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or
breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds,
the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party
and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto
- Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996
- (2012) 6 SCC 792
- 2005 (1) CHN 582
- IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Ena Shrivastava
Authentication No: FB305069078174-19-0223