Setting the scene
In most of the civil suits, time often is one of the biggest threats to justice. A party’s rights can be harmed even before the final verdict is delivered by the court. For instance, when a disputed property is sold, a contract is breached, or an asset is destroyed while the case is still pending. In order to prevent such situations, the law provides a remedy known as a temporary injunction.
Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders which serve as preventive measures that maintain the status quo and protect the subject matter of the dispute until the court reaches a decision. These orders are not meant to decide the merits of the case, but rather to ensure that justice remains possible by restraining harmful actions during the litigation process.
This blog will explain what temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders are, the laws that apply to them, the conditions for getting them, and important court decisions on the subject.
What is a temporary injunction?
An order where a party is restricted from performing any specific acts that can affect the case’s outcome is known as temporary injunction. In simple words, the party is restrained for a temporary period until the court proceedings come to an end.
At any stage of the suit before the final hearing has taken place, a temporary injunction can be granted under Order 39 of CPC. If the court believes that any property which is included in the suit is in danger of being damaged, wasted or alienated by any party to the suit, or the property can be wrongfully sold. In such cases the court may grant a temporary injunction. This would help in preventing such actions.
Essential conditions for granting temporary injunction
Certain conditions must be satisfied for a temporary injunction to be granted. In the case of Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh And Ors. (1991), the Supreme Court gave three key conditions which need to be present to grant a temporary injunction. The court also stated that these conditions have to be satisfied collectively. This case emphasises on following appropriate steps and provisions before the court grants a temporary injunction. The judge has the power to decide, but must carefully consider all important things before granting it.
The three conditions are:
- Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.
The applicant must establish that the dispute is bona fide and strong in their favor.
- Irreparable loss or injury.
The applicant has to show the court that if injunction is not provided they will suffer an irreparable loss or injury. This means the harm should be so serious that simply paying money later wouldn’t be enough to fix it.
- Balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
The applicant has to show the court that the inconvenience caused by refusing the injunction would be more than the inconvenience caused by the respondent.
- No delays
The applicant has to approach the court on time. There should not be any undue delay. The relief will be denied if the delay is made without any reasonable reason.
Judicial interpretations & landmark cases of temporary injunction
| Case law | Legal principle |
| M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs. The Coca Cola Co. & Ors (1995) | The purpose of giving an temporary injunction is to protect the person’s rights so they don’t suffer harm that money can’t fix. The court also said that the situation should be kept as it is (status quo) until the case is finally decided. |
| Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2006) | Giving an injunction is not automatic. It’s up to the judge, and they must use their judgment carefully, following the basic legal rules before deciding. |
| American Cyanamid Co. vs. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) | Before granting an injunction, the court must check three things:Does the person have a valid claim (prima facie case)? Will they suffer harm that can’t be fixed (irreparable harm)? Does the overall situation favour them (balance of convenience)?The same principle is followed in India as well. |
| Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors (2009) | If the person can get justice through some other proper legal remedy, the court will not give an injunction. All three conditions prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience must be met together. |
| M. Gurudas & Ors vs. Rasaranjan & Ors (2006) | Reaffirmed the main rules for granting injunctions and stressed that the court should keep things unchanged (status quo) during the case. Also said that an injunction is a special relief and judges should give it only after careful thought. |
| M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs. M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors (2012) | Just proving a prima facie case is not enough. The person must also show that the situation favours them (balance of convenience) and they will suffer real, lasting harm if the injunction is not granted. |
| Deoraj vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors (2004) | Sometimes situations are so urgent and serious that the court must act immediately to prevent injustice. In such cases, injunctions can be given quickly. |
| Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr (2009) | To get an injunction, the person must prove all three things: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. If they fail to prove the first one (prima facie case), the other two don’t matter and an injunction can’t be granted. |
| Martin Burn Ltd vs. R.N Banerjee (1957) | A prima facie case doesn’t mean the person has already won the case. It means that, based on the evidence shown so far, their claim seems believable and could succeed if proved later. |
| Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors (2008) | Courts also look at how the person asking for the injunction has behaved. If they have delayed for years, acted unfairly, or allowed the other party to freely deal with the property, they may not get an injunction. Just because the property is valuable is not a reason to grant it. |
| Paidisetti Bhankaranarayana vs. Paidisetti Rajeswar Rao And Ors (1990) | The person asking for an injunction does not have to fully prove ownership of the property. It’s enough to show there’s a genuine question about their rights and that the property should be kept in its current condition until the dispute is settled. |
Legal foundation of temporary injunction
Order 39 Rule 1
Order 39 Rule 1 outlines the circumstances under which a temporary injunction may be granted by a court .A temporary injunction can be granted when there is a property dispute. If during the suit the property involved in the dispute is in danger of being damaged, wasted, alienated or can be wrongfully sold by any party to the suit such injunction can be granted.
If the defendant intends or threatens to remove or dispose of his property with the aim of defrauding his creditors then also a temporary injunction can be granted by the court. The court can grant a temporary injunction if the defendant threatens to take away the plaintiff’s property or harm it in any way while the case about that property is still going on in court.
Order 39 Rule 2
Order 39 Rule 2 provides for injunctions to prevent the repetition or continuance of breach and states that if any person has filed a case in the court to stop another person from breaking a contract or causing harm, they can request the court to grant a temporary injunction at any stage of the case telling the person not to breach the contract, or cause any harm, or do any activity which can cause harm in relation to right, contract or property. It basically allows the court to stop the wrong action before it continues or gets worse.
Consequences of breach of temporary injunction
The court can take strict actions if someone breaches or disobeys an injunction order given under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The custody of the property can be taken away by the court and the person who has breached the temporary injunction shall be liable to imprisonment for up to three months unless released earlier.
If the temporary injunction order is still disobeyed for more than one year after the property is attached, the court may order the property to be sold. The compensation will be awarded by the court to the party who has suffered loss due to the breach and return any remaining amount to the rightful owner.
The punishment does not limit to the parties of the case. If any agent or employee of the defendant is included then they shall be liable as well. Breaking an injunction can lead to loss of property, imprisonment, and financial penalties.
What is interlocutory order?
An order which is not final in nature, but is issued by a court to address a specific issue which has arisen during the court proceedings when the trial is still pending is known as interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is ancillary in nature. With the assistance of this order the court can handle and decide the case in a way that is fair, efficient, and ensures justice is served. Interlocutory is not a final order given by the court where right or wrong is decided. This order is temporary and given during the pendency of the court proceeding.
Why is interlocutory order given?
- With the help of interlocutory order the court ensures that serious harm does not take place by handling the case quickly and with urgency.
- They help make the trial fair by settling small disputes about procedure or evidence during the case.
- They can make the case faster and easier by quickly solving certain issues.
- The temporary nature of interlocutory order helps in protecting the rights of the parties involved.
In Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors (1963), the Apex Court stated that if the case is already reserved for judgement, then no other interlocutory orders can be entertained.
Legal principles for interlocutory orders
Rule 6 to 10 of Order 39 of CPC mentions interlocutory order. There are some guiding principles which are introduced by High Courts and the Supreme Court to help with how and when interlocutory orders are to be granted.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
Interlocutory orders do not decide the case on its merits, so the doctrine of res judicata (which prevents the same issue from being re-litigated) does not apply. In Erach Boman Khavar vs Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that res judicata applies only when an issue is finally decided on merits.
Amendment of pleadings and interlocutory orders
During a case, the court can allow changes (amendments) to the written statements or pleadings if:
- The change will not cause unfairness or harm to the other party.
- The change is needed to properly decide the main dispute.
In the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others (1957), the Court said that all important amendments should be allowed unless they unfairly harm the other side.
Appeals and revision against interlocutory orders
Appeals against interlocutory orders are generally not allowed. However, an appeal may be permitted if the order has a significant impact on the final decision of the case. Under Section 105 of the CPC, when appealing against the final judgment, a party can also raise objections to interlocutory orders passed during the proceedings.
As for revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, the High Courts have very limited powers to interfere with interlocutory orders. They can only intervene when the order involves a serious jurisdictional error, such as the court acting beyond its authority. In Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma (2019), the Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should avoid interfering with interlocutory orders unless there is a clear jurisdictional mistake.
Conclusion
Temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders act as safeguards to protect rights and prevent harm while a case is still ongoing. They help maintain the existing situation so the court’s final decision remains meaningful. Both are granted only after meeting certain legal conditions and careful judicial consideration. Their proper use ensures fairness, prevents misuse, and upholds justice during the litigation process.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
When can a temporary injunction be rejected?
An injunction can be refused if the person asking for it has taken too long to act, has been careless, or has accepted the situation without raising any objection for a long time. It can also be denied if the person has not been honest, has acted unfairly, or has hidden important facts from the court. Further, if the harm they might suffer can be compensated later with money, the court may not find it necessary to grant the injunction.
Is order under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC appealable?
Yes, order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 are appealable.
What are the golden rules of temporary injunction?
The three golden rules of temporary injunction are that there should be an irreparable loss and injury, a strong prima-facie case, and balance of convenience.
Can a party misuse or abuse an interlocutory order?
There are chances that the interlocutory orders are utilised to delay procedures and gain unfair benefit from that.
What is the difference between interlocutory order and final order?
The interlocutory orders are for short term and are related to some specific matter, while final orders are definitive in nature and are given when the trial ends.
