1

Title: Injunction to Restrain the Defendant from Opening a Window

Introduction
This synopsis presents the case of seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from
opening a window under Indian laws. The plaintiff seeks this injunction to prevent the
defendant from engaging in a specific action that is causing harm or interfering with the
plaintiff's rights. This synopsis provides a brief overview of the legal principles involved
in granting such an injunction under Indian laws, along with relevant case law supporting
the plaintiff's claim.
Injunctions in India are primarily governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Specific
Relief Act provides provisions and procedures for granting both temporary and perpetual
injunctions.
In addition to the Specific Relief Act, other laws and statutes may also provide for
specific injunction provisions in certain areas. For example:

 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Code of Civil Procedure contains
provisions and procedures relating to injunctions in civil cases, including the
circumstances under which interim or temporary injunctions may be granted.

 Intellectual Property Laws: Laws such as the Copyright Act, 1957, the Patents
Act, 1970, and the Trademarks Act, 1999, have specific provisions for seeking
injunctions in cases of intellectual property rights infringement.

 Environmental Laws: Environmental statutes like the Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986, may provide for injunctions to prevent activities causing environmental
harm or pollution.

In this case, the plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent the defendant from opening a
window based on certain grounds. This case revolves around the issue of obtaining an
injunction to restrain the defendant from opening a window. The plaintiff seeks the
court's intervention to prevent the defendant from engaging in this specific activity, which
is causing harm or inconvenience to the plaintiff. The plaintiff believes that such an
injunction is necessary to protect their rights and interests.

What is an Injunction?
An injunction is a remedy granted by the court that prohibits the commission of a wrong
threatened or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun. An injunction
 2

is a preventive remedy granted to a party aggrieved by the acts of another party, and
thereby refrain the wrongdoers to pursue the acts performed by them, to evade any further
injury and thus considers equity. The law relating to injunction in India is governed by
the Specific Relief Act 1963, and falls under two categories i.e., Permanent or perpetual
injunction and temporary injunction.
The difference lies between them as to permanent injunctions where the restraint is to last
forever, whereas temporary injunctions, also known as, interlocutory injunctions, may be
granted at any stage of the suit and shall continue until specified time or further order of
the court. Temporary injunctions are regulated by Code of Civil Procedure 1908 whereas
perpetual injunctions are governed by Specific Relief Act 1963.
The Specific Relief Act defines injunction as "an order of the court restraining a person
from doing a particular act or ordering the performance of a certain act." Injunctions are
commonly sought in civil cases to prevent or stop the violation of rights, prevent
irreparable harm, maintain status quo, or enforce specific obligations.

Types Of Injunctions
1. 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
injunction
2. Perpetual injunction: It is issued at the finalisation of suit by means of a decree
and its effect remains forever. As per Sec.37(2) of Specific Relief Act. A perpetual
injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the
merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually prevented from the
assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to
the rights of the plaintiff.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Conditions For Granting an Injunction

There are three conditions for grant of an injunction:
 3

1. Prima facie case;

2. Irreparable loss; and
3. Balance of convenience.
In Nagrao Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust A.I.R. 2001, Bombay 402, the Bombay High
Court has decided that for issuing 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 issuing 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 issuing 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.

Related Case Laws

 K.E. Mohan vs J.K. Narasimha Bhagavathar, on 13 October, 2017

In this case, the plaintiff owned a building and the defendant owned a neighbouring
property. The plaintiff had constructed sunshades and windows on the southern side of
their building facing the defendant's property. The defendant had previously filed a suit
seeking a mandatory injunction to close the windows and remove the sunshades, but that
suit was dismissed and no appeal was filed. Subsequently, the defendant attempted to
close the windows and sunshades by raising a wall adjacent to the plaintiff's southern
wall.
 4

The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from
closing the windows and sunshades. The plaintiff relied on the judgment and decree of
the previous suit (O.S.No.514 of 1980) to argue that the defendant was estopped from
closing the windows and sunshades. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's actions
obstructed their air and light and violated the judgment in the previous suit.
However, the court observed that the plaintiff's pleadings were vague and did not clearly
establish the basis of their right to air and light through the windows. The court
emphasized that when distinct claims or causes of action are raised, the plaint must
contain specific facts supporting each claim. In this case, the plaintiff's averments lacked
clarity on the legal basis for their right to air and light through the windows.
Although the defendant's previous suit had been dismissed, and no appeal was filed
against the judgment, the court noted that the plaintiff's suit did not provide a clear basis
for claiming the right to air and light. The court found the plaintiff's pleadings to be
nebulous and vague, failing to reveal a clear legal right in claiming the relief sought.
Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction, emphasizing
the need for clear and specific pleadings to establish the basis of the claimed right in
order to sustain such a suit.

 Patel Kanji Virji Bhayani (Decd.) ... vs Patel Mohanlal Devraj Govanl on 22
November, 1978 (1979) 1 GLR 773

This case involves a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the
opening of windows and apertures in the western wall of the defendants' house, which
overlooks the plaintiff's land. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but the
appellate judge partially allowed the appeal. The appellate judge granted a declaration
that the defendants have no easement right to get light and air through the windows and
apertures on the ground floor of their house. A permanent injunction was issued,
restraining the defendants from fixing any doors, windows, and apertures in the western
wall on the ground floor. However, the claim for a mandatory injunction to remove and
close windows on the first floor and a permanent injunction against fixing any windows
or apertures on the first floor was rejected. The defendants have challenged this decision
in a second appeal.
The court referred to previous cases, including Parmatma Prasad v. Mt. Sampatli and
Sarojini Devi and Anr. v. Krista Lal Haldar and Ors., but found that they were not
directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The court emphasized the right of a
person to open doors or windows in their own wall unless there is a legal obligation not to
do so. In this case, the plaintiff's suit was deemed maintainable, and the plaintiff was
granted the relief of an injunction to prevent the defendants from opening windows and
apertures in the western wall on the first floor. The court concluded that the plaintiff is
 5

entitled to a mandatory injunction to close the existing windows and apertures on the first
floor and a perpetual injunction against opening any new ones

 Dhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigar vs Lisboa on 21 December, 1888 (1889) ILR 13

Bom 252
In this case, the dispute revolves around the extent of harm caused to four windows of
the plaintiff's house by the defendant's new building. The court examines each window
individually. For window No. 3, although the defendant's wall has been set back to a
distance of eleven feet from the window (originally planned at three and a half feet), there
will still be a significant reduction in direct light entering the room. However, considering
the overall construction of the room, which has other windows in the east wall providing
ample light, the court finds that the diminution of light does not materially affect the
comfort of the room's use. The plaintiff has been awarded damages for this window but is
seeking an injunction.
Regarding window No. 5, which opens onto a staircase, the court notes that the light
through this window was never very bright due to the obstructing roof of the defendant's
old house. Additionally, the staircase can receive sufficient light from other well-lit
rooms on the landing. Taking these factors into account, the court concludes that the
additional reduction in light through this window caused by the defendant's new building
can be adequately compensated by damages, and the plaintiff should not be granted an
injunction.
As for windows Nos. 7 and 8, located in a loft primarily used as a lumber-room but
occasionally as a bedroom, the court determines that the defendant's wall, which will be
about six feet away from these windows, will not significantly interfere with the
plaintiff's comfort in using the loft. Considering the expected usage of the space, damages
are deemed sufficient compensation for the injury caused, and the court denies the request
for an injunction.
Overall, the court awards damages for window No. 3 but denies the injunction, as the
light diminution is not considered materially detrimental to the room's use. The court also
denies the injunction for window No. 5, as damages are deemed appropriate
compensation. Finally, the court denies the injunction for windows Nos. 7 and 8,
concluding that damages are sufficient to address the harm caused.

 Jai Raj Bharal vs Jai Sharan on 28 January, 2023

The plaintiff in this case had a dispute with Layak Ram in 1967, where Layak Ram
threatened to close the windows and obstruct the drain pipe passing through his house. To
resolve the matter, a compromise decree was reached in 1969, in which Layak Ram
agreed not to obstruct the flow of light, air, and open drains to the plaintiff's house.
 6

However, the property changed hands over the years, and the current owner, Jai Sharan
(defendant no. 1), planned to permanently close the windows and obstruct the flow of
water. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the blocking of windows
and a mandatory injunction to reopen the windows that had been closed during the
proceedings.
The court held that the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata under
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The plaintiff, Dev Dutt, was the plaintiff
in the prior suit as well, and the issue of the windows and drain had already been
adjudicated upon between the predecessors of the parties. Therefore, the court concluded
that the present suit was not maintainable.
Additionally, the court referred to Section 38(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which
states that perpetual injunction may be denied if the invasion of the plaintiff's rights can
be adequately compensated with monetary compensation. In this case, the windows had
been closed for a long time, and the plaintiff had not opened any windows on that side of
the building. The defendants had also constructed additional rooms and floors, which
resulted in a lack of natural light and air from those windows. The concept of open drains
was no longer in use due to the sewage system. Therefore, the court determined that
ordering the opening of the windows would serve no purpose, as it would not provide
natural light or fresh air

Conclusion
Based on the legal principles outlined above and the relevant case law under Indian laws,
the plaintiff has a strong argument for seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant
from opening a window. By demonstrating interference with their legal rights,
establishing irreparable harm, and emphasizing the balance of convenience, the plaintiff
can persuade the court that granting the injunction is necessary to protect their interests.
However, it is important to note that Indian courts consider the specific facts and
circumstances of each case, and the ultimate decision will depend on the court's
assessment of the balance of convenience and the interests of justice.