DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DRAFTING OF PLEADINGS AND

CONVEYANCING

RULES REGARDING THE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION

FINAL DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Manoj Kumar
Assistant Professor (Law)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National
Law University

SUBMITTED BY:
Tejasswini L
Enrollment No. 210101156
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law
University
 I

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project on ‘Rules Regarding the Application for Temporary
Injunction’, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of B.A.
LLB. (Hons.), to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, is the original work done
by me under the guidance of Dr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Professor (Law), Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohiya National Law University. This research work has not been submitted to any other
University or Institute for the award of any degree/diploma/fellowship or other titles.

Tejasswini L
 II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher Dr. Manoj Kumar, the Hon’ble HOD Dr. A. P.
Singh and the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr. Amar Pal Singh, who gave me the opportunity to
compile and present this project on ‘Rules Regarding the Application for Temporary
Injunction’. I am grateful for my teacher’s valuable insights, guidance, and support in
completion of this project.

I am indebted to the librarians of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library, who assisted me in the making
of this project by enabling access to various materials in the online mode.

I would also like to thank my seniors, batchmates and family for their constant support and
assistance in completing this project.

Despite of my best efforts, some discrepancies might have crept into my project. I humbly
request my teacher to kindly forgive the same.

Tejasswini L
 III

Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Grounds of Temporary Injunction ...................................................................................................... 2
Conditions for Granting Temporary Injunction ................................................................................ 2
Circumstances where Injunction can be Granted .............................................................................. 3
Consequences of Disobedience or Breach of an Injunction............................................................... 4
Ex-parte Injunction .............................................................................................................................. 5
Discharge and Variation of Order of Injunction ................................................................................ 6
Injunction on corporations................................................................................................................... 6
Lis Pendens ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 8
 1

Introduction
An injunction, a cornerstone of judicial proceedings, serves as a potent tool through which a
party is compelled by court order to either execute a specific action or abstain from engaging
in a particular behavior. This legal remedy embodies the authority of the court to intervene and
safeguard rights, prevent irreparable harm, or maintain the status quo pending resolution of a
dispute. Its essence lies in the issuance of an authoritative directive aimed at an individual,
commanding them to cease an ongoing action or to fulfill a certain obligation for the purpose
of averting harm or ensuring compliance with legal obligations.

Within the spectrum of injunctions, two principal categories emerge: temporary (or interim)
injunctions and permanent injunctions. Temporary injunctions, as delineated by Order XXXIX
of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), are granted on a provisional basis to address urgent
situations, typically until the conclusion of the legal proceedings or until further orders from
the court. On the contrary, permanent injunctions, governed by Sections 38 to 42 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, are issued following a thorough adjudication of the case, often at the
conclusion of a trial, after affording both parties the opportunity to present their arguments and
evidence.

In terms of functionality, injunctions assume various forms, including preventive, prohibitive,

or restrictive, aimed at forestalling, prohibiting, or restraining certain actions deemed injurious
or unlawful. Conversely, they may be mandatory, compelling individuals to undertake specific
actions mandated by the court. This spectrum of injunctions underscores their adaptability in
addressing diverse legal scenarios and ensuring equitable outcomes.

Crucially, both plaintiffs and defendants possess the prerogative to seek injunctions against one
another, thereby invoking the court's authority to intervene in disputes and uphold justice.
However, it is imperative to note that injunctions can only be directed against parties involved
in the litigation, precluding their issuance against unrelated third parties or strangers.
Furthermore, injunctions cannot be invoked against courts or judicial officers, safeguarding the
integrity of the judicial process.

In essence, an injunction represents more than a mere legal tool; it embodies the judiciary's
inherent power to administer justice, mitigate harm, and uphold the rule of law. Through its
judicious application, injunctions serve as a bulwark against injustice, ensuring the
preservation of rights and the equitable resolution of disputes within the legal framework.
 2

Grounds of Temporary Injunction

Order 39, Rule 1 of legal statutes outlines the pivotal circumstances under which a Temporary
Injunction may be granted by the court, providing a structured framework for judicial
intervention to prevent imminent harm or injustice. Firstly, the provision addresses situations
where the property under dispute faces the looming threat of being wasted, damaged, or
alienated by any party involved in the suit, or worse yet, wrongfully sold in execution of a
decree. This clause serves to safeguard the integrity and preservation of assets pending the
resolution of the legal dispute. Secondly, the rule pertains to scenarios wherein the defendant,
with malicious intent, poses a clear and present danger by threatening or expressing intentions
to remove or dispose of their property, thereby jeopardizing the rights of creditors. Such actions
are deemed detrimental to the fair adjudication of the case and the equitable distribution of
assets. Thirdly, the provision extends protection to the plaintiff by addressing situations where
the defendant's actions, whether through threats or overt acts, endanger the plaintiff's
possession or cause potential harm in relation to the property in contention. This clause aims
to maintain the status quo and prevent any undue prejudice or loss suffered by the plaintiff
pending the final adjudication of the matter. Additionally, the rule encompasses broader
concerns of peace and contractual integrity by addressing situations where the defendant's
actions are on the brink of breaching peace or contractual agreements, thereby disrupting
societal harmony and contractual obligations. Such preemptive measures aim to mitigate
potential conflicts and uphold the sanctity of agreements. Finally, the provision acknowledges
the overarching principle of justice, empowering the court to exercise discretion and grant
temporary injunctions when deemed necessary in the interest of justice. This discretionary
power underscores the court's role as a guardian of fairness and equity, ensuring that legal
remedies are deployed judiciously to serve the overarching goals of justice and protection of
rights. Thus, Order 39, Rule 1 stands as a comprehensive legal provision designed to address a
spectrum of scenarios necessitating immediate judicial intervention to preserve rights, prevent
harm, and uphold the principles of justice within the legal framework.

Conditions for Granting Temporary Injunction

In the realm of legal remedies, injunction stands as a discretionary recourse, requiring the
fulfillment of specific conditions as prerequisites for its issuance. These conditions serve as
essential benchmarks aimed at ensuring the equitable adjudication of disputes and the
protection of the rights of all parties involved. Firstly, a fundamental requirement entails the
 3

establishment of a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff and substantiating allegations against
the defendant, indicating a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Secondly, the
plaintiff must convincingly demonstrate that the harm inflicted upon them is of such a nature
that it cannot be adequately compensated for through monetary means, thereby constituting
irreparable injury. Thirdly, the balance of convenience must decidedly tip in favor of the
plaintiff, necessitating a thorough consideration of the overall circumstances surrounding the
case. Additionally, the applicant must present a bona fide dispute, coupled with a probability
of entitlement to the relief sought, further emphasizing the necessity of genuine contention. It
is imperative to recognize that the burden of proof rests squarely upon the plaintiff seeking the
injunction, with the mere fulfillment of one of the stipulated conditions deemed insufficient to
warrant the granting of relief.

In the elucidation of the court's discretionary powers in matters of injunctions, the landmark
case of Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh and Ors.1 serves as a poignant illustration. The apex
court underscored the paramount importance of exercising sound judicial discretion, urging a
meticulous weighing of the potential harm or injury likely to be inflicted upon the parties
involved. In navigating this delicate balance, the court is enjoined to undertake a
comprehensive assessment, comparing the substantial mischief or injury that could result from
both the granting and the refusal of the injunction. Such an approach ensures that the court's
decision is informed by a holistic consideration of the interests at stake, thereby advancing the
cause of justice and fairness in legal proceedings. Thus, injunctions, as discretionary remedies,
embody not only a legal mechanism for relief but also a safeguard for the principles of equity
and fairness within the legal system.

Circumstances where Injunction can be Granted

The spectrum of circumstances warranting the grant of a temporary injunction is broad and
multifaceted, reflecting the nuanced nature of legal disputes and the diverse array of interests
at stake. Among the myriad scenarios that may necessitate such intervention are those aimed
at maintaining the status quo, preventing the unwarranted transfer of property, halting the hasty
disposal of goods, restraining the commencement of construction projects, facilitating the
expeditious recovery of dues, securing assets through attachment, and appointing receivers or
commissions to oversee specific matters. These measures serve as essential safeguards,
ensuring the preservation of rights and preventing irreparable harm pending the resolution of

1
AIR 1993 SC 276.
 4

legal proceedings. Each scenario represents a unique facet of potential injustice or prejudice
that may arise, underscoring the importance of swift and decisive action by the courts to uphold
the integrity of the legal process.

A landmark case shedding light on the courts' discretionary powers in this regard is Manohar
Lal vs Seth Hira Lal AIR 1962. In this pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that even in
instances where a case does not neatly fit within the specified grounds outlined in Order 39 of
the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the judiciary retains the authority to grant a temporary
injunction through the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC. This
assertion highlights the judiciary's commitment to fairness and equity, affirming its ability to
adapt legal remedies to meet the exigencies of evolving circumstances. By recognizing the
inherent flexibility of the legal framework, the court reaffirms its role as a bastion of justice,
capable of addressing complex legal challenges with pragmatism and procedural integrity.
Thus, the expansive scope of circumstances warranting temporary injunctions, coupled with
the judiciary's inherent powers to dispense equitable relief, ensures the continued efficacy and
fairness of the legal system in safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved.

Consequences of Disobedience or Breach of an Injunction

Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) delineates the consequential actions in
cases where the mandates outlined in Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 are disregarded. When
parties fail to adhere to these rules, they expose themselves to stringent penalties designed to
uphold the sanctity of judicial orders and ensure compliance with court directives. Primarily,
non-compliance may result in the attachment of the party's property as a punitive measure,
thereby imposing a tangible consequence for their disobedience. Furthermore, the delinquent
party may face detention in civil prison, albeit for a limited duration not exceeding three
months, serving as a further deterrent against flouting court orders. Additionally, the duration
of attachment is subject to specific limitations, with the restriction that it should not extend
beyond a period of one year, thereby striking a balance between enforcing compliance and
preventing undue hardship on the party in breach. Moreover, in cases where disobedience
persists despite initial sanctions, the court may authorize the sale of the attached property as a
last resort to compel adherence to the injunction.
 5

In the landmark case of Ram Prasad Singh vs Subodh Prasad Singh2, the judiciary clarified the
scope of liability under O39, R2-A, CPC, setting a precedent for enforcing injunction orders.
The court ruled that individuals could be held accountable under this provision even if they
were not direct parties to the suit. This expanded liability encompasses individuals known to
have acted as agents or servants of the defendant and who have contravened the injunction
order despite possessing knowledge of its existence. This ruling underscores the judiciary's
commitment to upholding the integrity of judicial orders and ensuring compliance with court
directives, even when parties attempt to circumvent their obligations through proxies or
intermediaries. Thus, Order 39, Rule 2-A assumes paramount importance as a crucial
mechanism for enforcing judicial orders, maintaining the integrity of the legal process, and
upholding the rule of law.

Ex-parte Injunction
Rule 3 of Order 39 within the Civil Procedure Code sets forth a procedural requirement wherein
the applicant seeking an injunction is obligated to serve notice to the opposing party before the
injunction is granted. However, it's noteworthy that the court retains discretionary power to
grant an ex-parte injunction, meaning without providing prior notice or a hearing to the party
that would be affected by such an order. Nevertheless, this authority is to be exercised
judiciously and only under exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of process or injustice.
In the case of Morgan Stanley vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 (241-242), the Supreme Court
provided guidance on factors to be weighed by courts when considering ex-parte injunctions.
These factors include assessing the likelihood of irreparable or serious harm to the plaintiff,
balancing the injustice that would arise from granting or refusing the injunction, considering
the timing of the plaintiff's notice of the alleged wrongful act, and examining any acquiescence
by the plaintiff in the situation. Moreover, general principles such as establishing a prima facie
case, evaluating the balance of convenience, and assessing the potential for irreparable loss are
also relevant considerations. These guidelines were reaffirmed in the case of Union of India vs.
Era Educational Trust.3

Importantly, it is recognized that an order granting or refusing an injunction, irrespective of

whether it is an ex-parte order, is subject to appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1. However, it is
crucial to note that revision against an order refusing to grant an ex-parte injunction is not

2
AIR 1983 Pat 278.
3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1785697/.
 6

covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of the second proviso of section-115. This implies that the refusal
to exercise jurisdiction by the revisional court is considered appropriate, and as such, no
revision is permissible in such cases. This comprehensive framework underscores the
procedural intricacies involved in the issuance of injunctions and emphasizes the need for a
balance between safeguarding the interests of the parties and upholding the principles of
procedural fairness and justice within the legal system.

Discharge and Variation of Order of Injunction

Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes the procedure for the discharge,
variation, or setting aside of any injunction order by the court upon application by any
dissatisfied party. This provision ensures that parties have recourse to seek modifications to
injunction orders if they feel aggrieved by them. Additionally, the rule stipulates that if a party
knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in their application for a temporary injunction
or in any supporting affidavit, and the injunction is granted without notifying the opposite party,
the court must vacate the injunction unless it deems it unnecessary in the interests of justice,
with reasons for such a decision to be recorded. Furthermore, if an injunction order is issued
after giving the party an opportunity to be heard, it cannot be discharged, varied, or set aside at
the request of that party unless there has been a change in circumstances or the court determines
that the order has caused undue hardship to that party. This comprehensive framework ensures
fairness and procedural integrity in the granting and potential modification of injunction orders,
safeguarding against abuse and ensuring that justice is upheld within the legal system.

Injunction on corporations
Order 39, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that an injunction directed towards a
corporation holds binding authority not only over the corporation itself but also extends to all
members and officers of the corporation whose personal actions are being restrained by the
injunction. This provision underscores the principle of corporate responsibility, ensuring that
legal directives aimed at restraining specific actions or behaviors of a corporation are applicable
not only to the entity as a whole but also to the individuals within the corporation who are
directly implicated in the matter. By holding all members and officers accountable for
compliance with injunctions, this rule reinforces the notion of collective accountability and
reinforces the efficacy of legal remedies in regulating the conduct of corporate entities. Thus,
Order 39, Rule 5 serves as a pivotal mechanism for enforcing injunctions within the corporate
 7

framework, promoting accountability and adherence to legal obligations among all

stakeholders involved.

Lis Pendens
A Lis Pendens, commonly known as a "notice of pending litigation," functions as a formal alert
to the public that a legal action has been initiated concerning a property. This notice serves to
caution potential buyers or other interested parties that there is ongoing litigation related to the
property in question. Essentially, it requires anyone considering transactions involving the
property to acknowledge and assume any legal risks associated with its purchase or transfer.
The principle of Lis Pendens embodies the concept that a buyer must be aware of and prepared
to accept any legal encumbrances or liabilities tied to the property's ownership.4

In contrast, a Temporary Injunction operates as a judicial remedy aimed at preserving the status
quo or preventing imminent harm pending the resolution of a legal dispute. Unlike Lis Pendens,
which serves as a public notice, a Temporary Injunction is a specific court order issued at the
request of one party to prohibit another party from taking certain actions until the legal matter
is resolved. While both mechanisms involve property rights, they serve distinct purposes within
the legal framework.

Regarding the court's authority to grant injunctions, it is important to note that if a case does
not fall within the scope of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the court still retains
the power to issue interim injunctions through its inherent powers under Section 151 of the
CPC. These inherent powers allow the court to take necessary action to ensure justice and
prevent abuse of the legal process, even in cases not explicitly covered by specific procedural
provisions.

However, in the case of Hassan Yusuf Khan vs. Syed Ashia Ali5, the court clarified the
limitations of this authority. The court held that while Section 151 empowers the court to issue
injunctions, such powers should not be used indiscriminately, especially when the remedy is
available under specific provisions. The court emphasized that the grant of an interim
injunction is an extraordinary measure and should only be considered when the plaintiff's
entitlement to relief is unequivocal, and the defendant's liability or potential harm is evident.
This ruling underscores the importance of judicial restraint and adherence to established legal

4
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lis-pendens.asp.
5
1979 ALL. L.J. 54.
 8

procedures, ensuring that remedies are applied judiciously and in accordance with the
principles of fairness and equity.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the institution of injunctions stands as a fundamental pillar within the framework
of judicial proceedings, serving as a powerful mechanism for maintaining order, protecting
rights, and ensuring justice within the legal system. As exemplified by the delineation of
temporary and permanent injunctions, these legal remedies play a crucial role in addressing a
myriad of legal scenarios, from preventing imminent harm to preserving the integrity of
property rights. The conditions for granting temporary injunctions underscore the judiciary's
commitment to fairness and equity, requiring a meticulous assessment of the merits of the case
and the potential for irreparable harm. Through landmark cases and statutory provisions, the
courts have delineated the parameters for the exercise of judicial discretion, emphasizing the
importance of balancing competing interests and upholding the rule of law.

Moreover, the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction orders highlight the

judiciary's resolve in enforcing compliance and maintaining the sanctity of judicial directives.
By delineating procedures for the discharge and variation of injunction orders, the legal system
ensures procedural fairness and integrity, allowing parties recourse to seek modifications when
necessary. Furthermore, the accountability imposed on corporations through injunctions
underscores the principle of collective responsibility and promotes adherence to legal
obligations among all stakeholders.

In parallel, the concept of Lis Pendens serves as a vital safeguard, alerting parties to pending
litigation and mitigating risks associated with property transactions. While distinct from
temporary injunctions, Lis Pendens serves a complementary role in preserving the integrity of
property rights and ensuring transparency in legal proceedings.

Overall, the comprehensive framework governing injunctions reflects the judiciary's

commitment to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and procedural integrity. By
navigating the intricate balance between competing interests and ensuring equitable outcomes,
injunctions emerge as indispensable tools in safeguarding rights and promoting the rule of law
within society. As such, they epitomize the judiciary's role as a guardian of justice, entrusted
with preserving the fabric of civil society and ensuring the equitable resolution of disputes
within the legal framework.