An Injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or
refrain from doing, any act. It is the remedy in the form of an order of the
court addressed to a person that either prohibits him from doing or continue
to do such act. Thus, Injunction is a relief that (prevents or restricts
from doing an act) or (may include the order from doing any act for the
purpose of prevention).
Kinds of Injunction:
A temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing
the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or
until the further order of the court. It is regulated under the provisions
of Order -XXXIX of CPC and may be granted at any stage of the suit.
Permanent Injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act
and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusions of the trial after
hearing both the parties to the suit. It is governed by Section-38 to Sec-42
of Specific Relief Act,1963.
Injunction are also:
Who may apply and against whom Injunction may be issued?
- Preventive, prohibitive or
restrictive i.e. when they prevent, prohibit, or restrain someone from doing
- Mandatory i.e. when they compel, command or order person to do
Both plaintiff and defendant may apply for Injunction against each other. An
injunction may be issued only against a party and not against any stranger
or a third party.
It also cannot be issued against a court or judicial officers.
Grounds of Temporary Injunction:
O39 R1 provides that Temporary Injunction may be granted by court:
Conditions for granting Temporary Injunction:
Injunction is discretionary remedy and thus, before granting of the
temporary injunction, the following conditions are required to be satisfied:
- Property in dispute is in danger of being WASTED,
DAMAGED or ALIENATED by any party to the suit, or WRONGFULLY SOLD IN
EXECUTION OF DECREE.
- Where defendant: THREATENS or INTENDS TO REMOVE or DISPOSE OF HIS
PROPERTY with a view to defraud creditors.
- Where defendant: THREATENS TO DISPOSSESS the plaintiff or
otherwise CAUSE INJURY to the plaintiff in RELATION TO THE PROPERTY IN
- Defendant is about to COMMIT BREACH OF PEACE OR CONTRACT OR
OTHERWISE (Order 39 Rule 2).
- Where the court is of opinion that INTEREST OF JUSTICE, so required.
- Prima Facie Case is in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
- Irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff, which
cannot be compensated for in terms of money.
- Balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff and against the
- There is a bona fide dispute raised by the applicant and there is a
probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief claimed by
Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff praying for the relief. Mere proof of
one of the above conditions does not entitle a person to an order of
Case- Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh and Ors
. the Apex Court, while
considering the question of balance of convenience observed that the court
while exercising discretion in granting or refusing injunction should
exercise sound judicial discretion and should attempt to weigh substantial
mischief or injury likely to be caused to the parties , and in the case of
refusal of injunction should compare it with that which is likely to be
caused to the opposite party, if the injunction is granted.
Circumstances where Injunction can be granted:
The list below is not exhaustive but some of them are as follows:
- To maintain status -quo.
- Against transfer of property.
- Disposal of goods.
- Making construction
- Effecting recovery of dues.
- Attachment of property.
- Appointing receiver or commission
- Against Prosecution etc.
Case: ManoharLal vs Seth HiraLal
AIR 1962; SC held, even if case not
covered on grounds of 0-39, Temporary Injunction can be granted in exercise
of Inherent Powers Under Section 151 of CPC.
Consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction:
O 39 Rule 2-A: If Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 are not complied then:
- Property of guilty be attached.
- Detention in civil prison not exceeding 3 months.
- Limit of attachment:
- Not more than 1 year.
- If disobedience or breach continues – Property may be sold.
Case: Ram Prasad Singh vs Subodh Prasad Singh
 , it was held by the
court that a person is liable to be proceeded against O39, R2-A,CPC even if
he was not personally a party to the suit provided he is known to have been
agent or servant of the defendant and to have violated the order of
injunction in spite of knowledge that there was such an order.
Rule 3 of O-39 requires that the applicant to issue a notice to the opposite
party before an injunction is granted. Though the court has the power to
grant an ex-parte injunction without issuing a notice or granting a hearing
to the party, who will be affected by such order, the said power is to be
exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances.
Case: Morgan Stanley vs. Kartick Das
, (1994) 4 SCC 225 (241-242),
the Supreme Court indicated the following factors which should weigh with
a court in the grant of an ex-parte Injunction:
- Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensure to the
- Whether the refusal of an ex-parte injunction would involve greater
injustice than grant of it would involve.
- The court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first
had notice of the act complained of so that the making of an improper
order against a party in his absence is prevented.
- The court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for
some time and in such circumstances, it will not grant an ex parte
- General principle like prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.
The above stated guidelines were followed in Union of India vs. Era
, AIR 2000 SC 1573
An order issuing or refusing to issue an Injunction is subject to appeal in
view of Order-XLIII. Thus, any order passed in exercise of the powers in
Rule 1 (including ex- parte orders) would be appealable as indicated in
order XLIII, Rule 1.
Revision against the order refusing to grant ex parte injunction, is not
covered under by clause (i) and (ii) of second proviso of section-115.
Refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the revisional court is proper i.e. No
revision is permissible in such a case.
Discharge and variation of order of injunction:
O-39 R4 lays down that any order for an injunction may be discharged or
varied or set aside by the court on an application made thereto by any party
dissatisfied with such order.
It is further provided that if an application for temporary Injunction, or
in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a
false or misleading statement in relation to a particular matter and the
injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the
court must vacate the injunction unless for the reasons to be recorded, it
considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
Moreover, if an order for an injunction has been passed after giving to a
party an opportunity of being heard, the order is not to be discharged,
varied or set aside on the application of that party, except where such
discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in
the circumstances, or unless the court is satisfied that the order has
caused undue hardship to that party.
Injunction on corporations:
0-39 R5 says that An Injunction directed to a corporation is binding not
only on the corporation itself, but also on all the members and officers of
the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain.
A Lis Pendens is an official notice to the public that a lawsuit involving a
claim on a property has been filed. Lis pendens refers to the concept that a
buyer of a property must assume any litigation that exists pertaining to the
Difference between Temporary Injunction and Lis pendens:
Inherent powers of the court to grant injunction:
Where the cases are not covered by Order 39, Interim injunctions can be
granted by the court in exercise of inherent powers under section 151 of
Case: Hassan Yusuf Khan vs. Syed Ashia Ali[
5], the court held that
Order 39 Rule 1 and sec-151 do not entitle the court to issue injunctions
against the lawful owner. The grant of an id interim injunction is an
extraordinary thing. It is not permissible to grant it unless the plaintiff
is undoubtedly entitled to a decree and the defendant is undoubtedly liable
or likely to take away the fruits of the decree. Therefore, inherent power
under section 151 cannot be used as a regular affair when the remedy is
available in a specific provision.
Written By: Priyanka Chandra
- AIR 1993 SC 276.
- AIR 1983 Pat 278.
- 1979 ALL. L.J. 54.