What is an injunction? what are the various kinds of it? When it can be
Normally, the case lasts for a very long time and if the case is related with
the property, then it becomes necessary to keep the property intact till the
final disposal of the suit. If the conditions are charged by either of the
parties, then it may cause irreparable loss to other party. Under this
situation, the court passes an order to maintain the status quo. This order is
What is an injunction?Different definitions of injunction have been given by different jurists:
According to Halsbury: Injunction is such judicial proceedings whereby the order
is passed and given to any party for doing or not doing any act.
According to Barmi Dictionary:
Injunction is such order by which any person is prevented from interfering in
the right of another or prevented from threatening to interfere in the right of
In State of Rajasthan Vs Randheer Singh
(A.I.R. 1972, Rajasthan 241), the High
Court of Rajasthan while defining injunction has said that the injunction is
such specific order of the court which is issued to:
prevent such wrongful act which has been commenced or to prevent the threatening
to commence such act.
Thus injunction is such order of the court which is issued by it, at any stage
of the case, to maintain the status quo of the disputed property till the final
disposal of the case or till further orders.
Types of injunction:
The injunctions are of four types:
Temporary injunction:Temporary injunction means such order issued by the court to maintain the status
quo of the property till the final disposal of the case. The effect of such
injunction remains till the final disposal of the case or till further orders.
The main objective of this is to provide security, protection and preservation
of the property (Mohammad Hafiz Khan Vs Najiban Bibi, 1973, JLJ 114)
The specific injunction mentioned in Civil Procedure Code 1908, means this
Perpetual injunction:It is issued at the finalisation of suit by means of a decree and its effect
Prohibitory injunction:It is such type of injunction by which the third party is prevented from doing
any act i.e. the order is passed as not to do any act. For example, to prevent
from doing any construction work, illegal possession and selling any property.
Mandatory injunction:It is the fourth type of injunction. It is such a type of injunction whereby an
order is issued to any party to do a particular act in a particular way.
When an injunction can be issued?
Under Rule 1, Oder 39 of Civil Procedure Code 1908, those circumstances have
been mentioned under which injunction can be issued. When in any suit, it is
proved by any affidavit or otherwise that:
- the possibility exists for the disputed property to be destroyed, damaged
or transferred; or
- the defendant threatens or intends to remove or consume his property
with the intention of committing fraud; or
- the defendant threatens the plaintiff to dispossers
or damage his property.
Under the above conditions, the court can issue temporary injunction to be
effective till the finalization of the case or till further orders to prevent
the property from:
- being destroyed
- being damaged
- from being sold
- from being removed
- from being changed
- from dispossession
- from being transferred elsewhere etc.
In a suit for recovery of money, where the court decided that defendant
threatens to remove or consume the property to defeat the execution of the
decree, then the court can issue injunction (M/S Cosmopolitan Trading
Corporation V/s M/s Engineering Sales, Corporation
, A.I.R. 2001, Rajasthan 331).
Similarly, injunction can be issued to prevent publication of defamatory matter
in a newspaper (Hari Shankar V/s Kailash Narayan,
A.I.R. 1982, Madhya Pradesh
Injunction can be issued to prevent musance and any act which creates obstacle
in peaceful use and consumption of property (Shamsher Singh Vs Rustam
1988 Rajasthan 188).
Principles of Injunction:There are three principles of temporary injunction:
- Prima facie case;
- Irreparable loss; and
- Balance of convenience.
In Nagrao Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust
A.I.R. 2001, Bombay 402, the Bombay High
Court has decided that for issueing injunction, the compliance of all the three
conditions as above is necessary. The same opinion was expressed in C.J.
International Hotels Ltd. Vs N.D.M.C
(A.I.R. 2001, Delhi 435).
- Prima facie case:
The first principle of issuing injunction is whether there is a prima facie
case which justifies such injunction. Prima facie case means that the dispute is
bonafide and there is possibility of success in favour of the plaintiff.
In Vimala Devi Vs Jang Bahadur A.I.R. 1977, Rajasthan 196, the High Court of
Rajasthan has decided that for temporary injunction, there should be a prima
facie case. It means the possibility of getting remedy by the plaintiff.
- Irreparable loss:
The second principle of issueing injunction is the irreparable loss to
plaintiff. Irreparable loss means such loss which may be caused to the plaintiff
if injunction is not issued. It is not possible to evaluate such loss in money.
It can be said also that if injunction is not issued, then the plaintiff can be
deprived of his rights for ever.
- Balance of Convenience:
The third principle of issueing injunction is balance of convenience. It means
if the injunction is not issued, then there will be more inconvenience to the
plaintiff relative to defendant. The court has to take into account the balance
of convenience. If the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff,
then injunction cannot be issued in his favour.
In this regard, Ushaben Naveen Chandra Tridevi Vs Bhagya Lakshmi Chitra Mandir
(A.I.R.1978, Gujarat 13) is a quotable case. In this, injunction was desired on
this ground that the film 'Jai Santoshi Maa' hurts the religious feelings of
hindus, therefore, its demonstration should be stopped. But the court did not
find anything as such. The court found balance of convenience in favour of
demonstration and refused to grant injunction.
In Prem Kumar Ghai Vs Dr. Veer Han Garg
, A.I.R. 2005, Punjab and Haryana 193, it
has been said that so long as balance of convenience is not in favour of the
applicant, the temporary injunction of demonstration and refused to grant
In Kusum Gupta Vs Sarala Devi
(A.I.R. 1988, Allahabad 154), it has been said
that if any of three principles is not complied with, the injunction should not
b e issued.