Injunction
Application
Hypothetical
A B
Injunction
“A judicial order restraining a person from beginning or
continuing an action threatening or invading the legal rights of another
or compelling a person to carry out a certain act.”
• Is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from
doing any particular act.
• It is a remedy in the form of an order of the court addressed to a
particular person that either prohibits him from doing something or
compels him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
• Stay order vs. Injunction Order.
Doctrine Explained
• Interim order can be granted in the aid of and as ancillary to the
main relief till the final determination of rights is adjudicated upon.
• Possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of
the suit temporary injunctions are thus issued during the pendency
of the proceedings.
• Purpose of granting interim relief preservation of the property in
dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the
court are adjudicated maintaining status quo.
• Evolving a workable formula to the extent called for by the demands
of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and
striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests – injury
and prejudice.
Types of Injunctions
• Temporary and Perpetual/Permanent Injunction.
• When can they be granted?
• Mandatory Injunction – positive duty.
• Ad Interim Injunction vs. Interim Injunction.
• Who can apply?
Temporary Injunction
“Are to continue until a specific time, or until the
further orders of the court…….”
– Section 37(1) Specific Relief Act 1963.
When can a temporary injunction be filed?
Objective
• Maintain and preserve status quo at the time of
institution of the proceedings and to prevent and
change in it until the final determination of the suit.
• It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favor of
a party to prevent future possible injury.
• The need for such protection has to be judged against
the corresponding need of the defendant to be
protected against injury resulting from exercising his
own legal right.
• The court may weigh one need against the other and
determine where the balance of convenience lies.
Order 39 CPC, 1908
Lays down the situations as to where the relief of temporary injunction can be
granted.
Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted:
a) That any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged
or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a
decree.
b) That the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his
property with a view to defrauding his creditors.
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.
d) Where the defendant is about to commit a breach of contract or other injury
of any kind.
e) Where the court is of the opinion that the interest of justice so requires s.
94(c) and 151.
Principles governing an IA
• The power to grant a temporary injunction is at the discretion of the
court.
• Has to be exercised reasonably and judiciously and on sound legal
principles.
• Should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side.
• It’s the in the nature of equitable relief court can impose if the
terms and conditions are met.
• Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
• Whether the P would suffer irreparable loss if his prayer of
temporary injunction is not granted?
• Whether the balance of convenience is in the favor of the P?
Prima facie case has been
established.
Balance of Convenience.
Principles of Irreparable Loss.
Injunction
One who seeks equity must
come with clean hands.
One who seeks equity must
do equity.
• Condition precedent to granting a
temporary injunction.
• Applicant must make out a prima facie
case in support of the right claimed by
Prima facie him.
• There is a bona-fide dispute raised by the
case has applicant arguable case for trial which
been needs investigation and a decision based
on merit and on the facts before the
established. court probability of the applicant being
entitled to the relief claimed by him.
• Burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to
satisfy to the court by leading evidence
that he has a prima facie case in his
favour.
• The Applicant must further satisfy
that they will suffer irreparable
injury if the injunction as prayed is
not granted there is no other
remedy open to him by which he
can protect himself from the
Irreparable consequences of apprehended
injury.
Loss/Injury • Only when absolutely necessary to
protect the rights and interests of
the applicant.
• Damages would not provide him an
adequate remedy in the even of
succeeding at the trial.
• Balance of convenience must be in
favour of the applicant.
• Court must be satisfied that the
comparative mischief and hardship
or inconvenience which is likely
caused to the applicant by refusing
Balance of the injunction will be greater than
Convenience that which his likely to be caused to
the opposite party by granting it.
• Weight the substantial mischief or
injury likely to be caused to the
parties if the injunction is refused.
• Burden to prove this lies with the
applicant.
Court shall before granting an
injunction, give notice to the
opposite party, except where
the object of granting the
Rule 3 – injunction would be defeated
Notice by delay.
• Plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and
possession in a Court at Delhi. In her plaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
forcefully evicted from the suit premises by the defendant, a builder. The
defendant in his written statement has denied the allegation and has claimed
that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff at a consideration of Rs.
2 crore under a deed of sale dated 2nd January 2016. The plaintiff has alleged
that the agreement is forged and has thereby challenged its authenticity. The
said agreement as produced by the defendant in his list of documents to the
written statement does not carry any seal of the registering authority. The
deed is also insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff fears that the defendant
would now either create third party rights in the suit property or may destroy
the property to develop the land and build and sell housing apartments. The
plaintiff has noticed the presence of earth-moving machines on the suit
premises which fuels her suspicion about Defendant’s motive not to wait for
the court to decide the suit. Plaintiff feels that if the defendant is not
restrained immediately, the decree of the court would become infructuous.
• Draft an interim relief application on behalf of the Plaintiff. With respect to
drafting of this application, follow the drafting rules pertaining to the court in
which this suit may have been filed.
