This case deals with the grant of the temporary injunction and also talks about
the powers of the court to impose such terms and conditions, which is in the
nature of equitable relief. The court observed in this case that the phrases
'prima facie cases', 'balance of convenience' and 'irreparable loss' is not
rhetoric in nature.
In this case, a total of four litigations was filed under Order 39 of CPC. On
14th June 1979, the appellant (Dalpat Kumar) entered into an agreement with the
respondent (Prahlad Singh) for the purchase of a residential house which is
situated in Jaipur for a consideration of Rs. 51,000. The appellant laid down a
suit for specific performance. On 28th April 1984, the wife of the respondent
filed a suit for a temporary injunction for the dispossession of the residential
house. In May 1984, the trial court rejected the suit filed by the appellant for
ad interim injunction but was later confirmed by the High Court on appeal on
14th July 1987.
The round of litigation was filed by the sons claiming the
residential house to be the joint property, and no sale of the property would
bind them, and as a result, they sought partition. They also filed for an
interim injunction which the High Court further rejected on 7th July 1988. On
7th December 1988, the fourth litigation was filed by the respondent claiming
that the first appellant played fraud. He then also sought an interim injunction
from the dispossession of the residential house. In an order dated 26th February
1991, the High Court allowed the interim injunction, which restricted appellants
from the possession of the residential house.
Whether the High Court had a right to grant for the ad-interim injunction to the
parties or the respondent for the dispossession of the property?
In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed three essentials that need to
be presented while granting a temporary injunction that needs to be fulfilled:
prima facie, the balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. As per order 39,
rule 1(c) of CPC, it describes an injunction as a judicial process by which one
party is refrained from doing anything or one party is required to refrain from
doing that particular activity. It is in this nature to prevent some possible
future injury and is regarded as preventive relief to a litigant.
injunction is a discretionary power of the court which can be exercised thereof:
- There is a seriously disputed question that is to be tried by the court
in the suit on the facts before the court, but there is the probability of
his being entitled to the relief which the plaintiff or the defendant is
- The court needs to interfere as it is necessary to prevent the possible
future loss or protect the party from the species of injuring. To be
precise, before the legal right is established at trial, irreparable loss or
injury would have ensued.
- The comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience would be greater
than that would be granted, which is likely to occur from withholding the
The condition for the grant of a temporary injunction is the existence of the
prima facie right and the infraction of his property's enjoyment or the right.
The Prima facie case cannot be confused with the prima facie trial as it is
established on the evidence of the trial. It is not sufficient to grant an
injunction that there is the satisfaction of the prima facie case itself.
The court further needs to satisfy that there will be an irreparable injury to
the party which is seeking relief due to non-interference of the court and that
there is no other option available except to grant the injunction, which could
prevent the party from the apprehended consequences of dispossession or injury.
Irreparable injury means that there should material injury, but it does not mean
that there should be no physical possibility of repairing that injury, and the
injury cannot be compensated by way of compensation. The third condition for
providing the grant for a temporary injunction should be the balance of
The court should exercise sound judicial discretion while granting or rejecting
the injunction filed by the respective parties so that they could find out the
amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused by the
parties. The court would have granted the ad-interim injunction in the previous
case but when the party seeks to set aside the decree on the basis of fraud
pleaded in the suit by another party, but the court would circumspect before
granting any injunction and look at the conduct of the respective parties and
look at the matter that if the injunction is refused than whether the plaintiff
is adequately compensated.
The sale deed was executed in favor of the first appellant by the court.
Respondents could be adequately compensated if they succeed at the trial. They
could be compensated by awarding damages for the occupation of the property from
the date of dispossession till the date of restitution. The trial court and the
High Court repeatedly refused the pending proceedings of the injunction.
The court also stated that if any alienation is made in the proceedings or
during the court's trial, it would be subject to the doctrine of lis pendis
under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882. The high court finally
held that in the interests of justice, the High Court could grant an injunction
without adverting any of the material circumstances with the following
observations: the court could grant the injunction in favor of the party keeping
in mind the history and the various facts which have been brought into notice
and looking for the irreparable loss or injury caused by the other party and
balance of convenience.
The High Court order was set aside, and the Supreme Court confirmed the trial
court's order. The Supreme Court stated that the respondent did not have valid
grounds based on which the injunction could be granted, and the appellant did
not do any fraud, and the contract was valid with valid consideration. The
parties were directed to bear their own costs. The Supreme Court also made it
clear that the High Court jumped to the conclusion in granting the temporary
injunction and did not lie down all the provisions and principles regarding the
Summary of Court decision/judgment:
Supreme Court observed that the High Court, without averting to any material
circumstance or evidence or any alienation, made that the balance of convenience
in favor of granting the injunction was wrong by the High Court. The Supreme
Court set aside the High Court order and Confirmed the order of the trial court.
The Supreme Court also stated that allowing the temporary injunction to the
respondent was not made by keeping in mind all the provisions and the principles
stated under order 39 of CPC.