INTERIM ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES

The expression “ Interim orders “ has not been defined in the code of Civil procedure. Similarly, interlocutory order ,
though not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, have been provided under order 39 pules 6 to 10 C PC and
from these provisos one some aid could be taken in understanding what is meant by interlocutory crders. For
instance , order for interim sale ,order for detention, preservation and inspection of subject-matter of the suit, order
for deposit of money in court etc. are some of such orders enumerated in the Code. Section 2 of the CPC is silent
on these definitions. Interim orders and interlocutory orders have different scope. Interim order may also be in the
nature of interlocutory orders. Such orders . whether interim or interlocutory are passed after the institution of a
suit or proceeding of civil nature and before the termination of such cases or proceedings . Such orders are in the
nature of interim arrangements for various propose. The main purpose of passing interim-arrangement for
preservation of the suit property and also fro making such arrangements so that the property may not be damaged,
wasted or alienated. Interlocutory orders are generally not appeal able . No revision also lies against
interlocutory order. Interim- order sometimes appear like interlocutory order but these orders are appeal able and
in appropriate cases revision also lies against such orders. These matters will be discussed in the following
portions of the discussion. Interim order are also passed on grounds of emergency.
2. INTERIM ORDERS – KINDS

Inter orders in the code of Civil procedure and generally understood as ad interim injunction . such injunction may
be in the nature of Propitiatory Injunction or it may be a Mandatory Injection . Sometimes order of the Court
directing the parties to maintain Status Quo is also considered a interim injunction granted by the Court . In some
cases parties or their counsel give undertaking before the court for doing or not doing a certain act and such
undertaking also amounts to interim injunction and its breach can order 39 CPC . also provides that the Court
may pass such other order as it thinks fit and such orders ale also considered as orders in the nature of interim in
junctions.

Interim in junctions are also granted under inherent power of the Code as provided under Section 151 CPC.
Such orders are passed in case not specifically covered by order 39 CPC .

Appointment of Receiver under order 40 CPC . has also been considered in the nature of interim order.

Similarly, order of arrest of the defendant before judgement and attachment before judgment as contemplated
under Order 38 CPC . are also in the nature of interim orders.

(a) INTERIM INJUNCTIONS –

Order 39 CPC . deals with ad interim temporary injunctions. Granting of temporary injunction is a matter of
discretion but the discretion is to be exercised with due care and caution. It is not to be exercised arbitrarily. The
court while exercising such discretion should act in accordance with settled judicial principles and not arbitrarily
and in capricious manner. While granting ad interim injunction , whether exporter or after contest, it should be
determined that such orders are so be used by the party claiming it as a should of defence and not as a swond of
attack. Injunctions should not be and cannot be granted as a matter of course. Granting of injunction has serious
consequences.

There are some of the guidelines which should be kept in mind by the presiding Officers while granting temporary
injunctions. The principles for grant or temporary injunctions. The principles for grants of temporary injunction are
well established and they are-
(1) Prima facie case;
(2) Balance of convenience;
(3) Irreparable loss and injury;

Unless all these three conditions co-exist, temporary is sine qua non for grant of temporary injunction . The
expression “ Prima Facie Case “ is not a term of art and in plain language it means that the plaintiff has a triable
case . The plaintiff has to show that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and on the facts before
the court there is probability that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief. It means only plaintiff is entitled to the relief . It
means only substantial and bonafide questions raised which at first sight need investigation. It should also be seen
that there should be fair chance of plaintiff’s success in the suit.
(2) BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE-

The second condition for grant of injunction is the balance of convenience if favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
should make out that in case of refusal to grant injunction is inconvenience will in all events exceed that of the
defendant and that such in convenience will out-weigh what the defendant has to suffer in case injunction is
granted .A question is generally raised whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage and if the answer to
such question is in affirmative the balance of convenience must till in favour of the plaintiff.
The onus of proving balance of convenience in his favour also lies upon the plaintiff and he has to establish that
the inconvenience which he will suffer by refusal to grant injunction is greater than that which the defendant will
suffer if the injunction is granted.

(4) IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY

The third condition for grant of injunction is whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the
injunction is refused. Irreparable injury does not mean injury which can never be repaired .On the other hand, it
has relation with monetary compensation. Where deamges are proper and adequate relief to the plaintiff, no
injunction should be granted because in that event plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury. Injury is said to be
irreparable if it cannot be compensated in terms of money.
It addition to the aforesaid three well settled principles for grants of temporary injection the course should also
keep in mind the following in----- consist

(5) CONDUCT OF THEPLANINTLEF

Temporary injunctions are equitable relief’s . consequently the pension claiming the aid of equity, must do equity
and must also or a which clear hand. If a person tries to obtain or booing tempory injunction by suppressing of
material focus on by playing fraud or deception upon the courts the e because should

Reluctant in granting or continuing any equitable relief .

Thus the conduct of the plaintiff is also an important factor which has to be taken into account by the courts while
granting such injunctions.

(6)
(5)DEALY AND LATCHES

When the plaintiff does not come to seek injunction at the earliest o-opportunity, it is normally a ground not to
grant injunction to him. If the plaintiff approaches the court after inordinate delay or after improper delay, he will not
be entitled to get help form the court in such equitable matters.

(7) ACQUISCENCE-

Where the plaintiff by his conduct has acquiesced in the act of the defendant and the defendant has incurred
heavy expenditure in raising construction etc, the plaintiff will normally not be granted temporary injunction. The
above principles apply in cases to tempory mandatory injunction. Similarly when injunctions are granted u/ ss.
151 CPC these principles should be kept in mind.
……………………………………………………………………. Under 39 rules 1 CPC .where it is proved by affidavit
or otherwise that any property in disputes in a suit is in danger of being waste, damaged alienated by any party to
the suit or wrongly sold in every solution of the decided, any party can obtain a restrain from the court preventing
such waste, damage alienation property or sale in execution of decree. Doubts arose whether injunction can be
claimed by the descendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff. The words any party . under this provision are wide ne
to authorise the injunction. However the defendant should also make out the three well established conditions for
grant of temporary injunction.
The second contingency when injunction can be granted by the court under provision it where the defendant
threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to remove or dispose of his property with a
view to defraud his irradiators. It is clear from these provision that injunction of the second category can claimed
only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant.
The third ground upon which injection can be granted under this provision is where the defendant threatens to
dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit. It
is thus , clear that this type of injunction can be claimed by the plaintiff only and not by the defendant. This
provision will apply to the prepare in only and not taken to the other property .A contrary view however, taken on
the point that the injunction can the also in respect of other property.
Under these provisions the court can issue temporary injunction and can also pass such order as it may think fit.
The duration of such order will be until disposal of the suit or until further orders. Injunction orders passed under
these provision take effect from the date or their communication to the party concerned and terminate on the
termination of the suit. If a suit is dismissed in the default the temporary injection also terminates. In the case
reported in AIR Allah bad 265 it has , however, been laid down that when the suit dismissed in default is
subsequently resorted the jununction order would not aromatically revive.

The words “ property in suit” in the foregoing provisions mean the property which is the subject –matter of the suit.

The word “ Danger “ in the aforesaid provision means actually apprehended danger and not mere allegation of danger by one
party. What is sufficient danger in a particular case depends on its facts and circumstances and no hard and fast rule can be
down for detach what statutes sufficient danger the proportion in a case.

(a- 111) TE MPORARY INJUNCTION IN CASE OF BREACH

OF OBLIGATION S- Order 39 R.2 CPC

Under Order 39 R. 1 CPC , temporary injunctions are granted with a view to prevent danger, waste, damage or
alienation to the property in suit . When breach of contract or contractual obligation is going to be committed or any
other injury of any kind is contemplated at the hands of the defendant , the court can grant temporary injunction
under Order 39 rule 2 CPC. This provision applies to the cases not covered by or order 39 Rule 1 CPC . It
generally applies to two types of cases-(1) where there is breach of contract. (2) where other injury of any kind is
alleged. Temporary injunction under Order 39 rule 1 CPC can be granted even in a suit which is not a suit for
permanent injunction. However , temporary injunction under this provision cannot be granted rules the suit is for
injunction. In a suit for injunction, may claim or may not claim compensation in addition to injunction, still temporary
injunction can be granted in the aforesaid provisions.
Injunctions can be granted under this provision before and also after the judgment to prevent committing such breach
or causing such injury or breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same property or right.
These right fall within the ambit of this provision. Under this provision injunction can be granted on such terms as to
the duration of the injunction keeping an account, giving security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit. For granting
injunction to prevent breach of contract it should be seen that these must be completed contract and the plaintiff has
acquired right under such contract. Unless irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff, no injunction can be
granted under this rule or in respect of a contract of which specific performance will be refused. In cases between
master and servant since the contract is not specifically enforceable , injunction cannot be granted.
Under the old Code of Civil Procedure the words a other injury of any “kind” were missing. These words were
substituted in the amendment of 1976. In view of this amendment now the cases of trespass, nuisance , infringement
of trade-mark copyrights public worship, commission or waste or nuisance are included in this rule.

Under this rule the Court can impose terms and conditions upon the plaintiff. This is done with a view to safeguard the
rights of the defendants. The terms, however, should be reasonable. Undertaking can be demanded from the plaintiff.
Condition order can also be passed in favor of the plaintiff and where conditional order is passed, injunction will
cease to be enforce when condition is not fulfilled.

The order passed under O. 39 R.2 CPC is appeal able.

(a- iv) CONSEQUENCE OF BRACH OF INJUNCTIONS

( order 39 Rule 2- A CPC)

In case of disobedience of temporary injunction granted by the Court, the Court granting injunction or the Court in
which the suit for proceeding is transferred may order-

(1) The property of the person committing breach to be attached;

(2) And may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless
in the meantime the court directs his release.

No attachment under this rule is to remain in force for more than one year. If still the breach continues, the
property attached, may be sold and the court may award compensation to the injured and the balance of the sale
price may be paid to the party entitled to it.

The consequences of breach of injunction order are of serious nature, hence the jurisdiction under this Section
should be carefully exercise . The proceeding is in the nature of quasi criminal proceeding and it should be
ascertained that the party against whom disobedience of injunction is alleged, has actually committed
disobedience. The onus of lies upon the person allowing disobedience. The order passed under this provision is
appeal able

If the injunction granted by the appellate court is disobeyed, the appellate court also
possesses similar powers.
When undertaking is given either by the parties or by their counsel and the undertaking is disobeyed or violated,
such is also punishable under this Rule. However , when undertaking is given by the third party, he cannot be
proceeded under this rule.

(a-v) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING INJUNCTION

(Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.)

It is a procedural provision which provides that notice is to be issued in all cases except where it appears to the
Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. In such cases the court shall record reason
for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay.

(a-vi ) VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF INJUNCTION ORDER

( Order 39 Rule 4 CPC .)
Any order of injunction may be discharged or varied or set aside by a court on the application by any
party dissatisfied with such order, It , therefore , means that such application can be moved by the plaintiff and
also by the defendant.

Injunction is obtained by a party who has knowingly made false or misleading statement in relation to a material
particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite-party , the Court shall vacate the
injunction that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of justice. It is , thus, clear that if injunction is obtained by
making false statement or misleading statement , the Court shall vacate injunction the moment such false or
misleading case comes to its notice , this provision applies only to expert injunctions granted in favor of the
plaintiff.
When injunction is granted after giving opportunity of hearing to the opposite-party the order shall not be
discharged, varied or setting aside has been necessitate by a change in the circumstances or unless the court is
satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.

(a- vii) INJUNCTION AGAINST CORPORATIONS

Under Order 39 Rule 5 CPC injunction against corporation is binding not only on the Corporation but also on all
the members and Officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain. When such injunction is
passed only such Officers are bound by it whose action is restrained by the injunction. The courts should,
therefore, pass injunction orders against corporations which should be proper worded because injunction order in
general term are bed to cause unnecessary hardship to the employees and Officers of the Corporation.

(b) MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS

Section 39 Specific Relief Act provides that when to prevent breach of an obligation it is necessary to compel
performance of certain acts, the court may in its discretion grant injunction to prevent the breach and also to
compel performance of requisite act. Mandatory injunctions are granted with a view to compel a party to do
certain act. Consequently while granting interlocutory mandatory injunction the court should be cautious in
granting the same. Under English law mandatory injunction can be granted at interlocutory stage and the same
principles are applicable as in cases of temporary injunctions. However, under Indian Law settled view is that
interlocutory mandatory injunction should be rarely and sparingly granted because it amounts to deciding the suit
before trial. There is no prcibition in granting such injunctions but it should be seen that it is absclutely necessary
to graft such injunction. The power to grant ad interim mandatory injunction has to be exercised in very rare cases
with due care and caution.
It has to be used sparingly in order to advance the cause of justice and not is a matter of course. Such injunction
can also be granted on the application of the defendant. Such injunctions are granted to restore status quo as it
stood on the date of the suit . Similarly, such injunctions can be granted to pull down the structures made after the
institution of the suit or to clear blockade of the drain alter the institution of the suit.

© INJUNCTIONS UNDER INHERENT POWERS OF COURT

(SECTION 15 CPC)

inherent power U/s , 151 CPC are to be exercised by the Court in two cases (1) where there is no express
provision in the Code to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice; (2) to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court.
 It is well settled that the order under this Section is not to be exercised to override express provision of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The case of Ram Chandar v. Kanhaiya Lal AIR 1966 SC 1889 can be referred. This power
of Code. The case of Manilal vs Sayed Ahmed AIR 1954 SC 349 can be refried. Thus, in exercise of inherent
power the Court can grant injunctions in the circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order 39
CPC if the interest of justice so requires or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. See Manohar Lal v
.Haralal AIR 527.
There is no inherent power to grant injunctions in cases falling under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC . Like wise, in a suit
against public officer ,no expert injunctions U/s. 151 CPC can be passed on grounds of mere emergency.

(d) ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

In some cases pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Such order is in the nature of injunction order
applicable against both the parties. If, however , only one party is directed to maintain status quo, such order binds only such
party and not the other party. Order to maintain status quo generally creates difficulty in case disobedience is complained of.
Consequently while passing such order the court should ascertain what was the status quo on the date of the suit or on the
date of the order. Any vague order should be avoided because it is likely to create difficulty in future.

(e) UNDER TA KINGS

Undertakings given by the parties or their counsel to do or not to do certain acts also amounts to injunction and breach of
such undertaking is punishable in the same manner as breach of injunctions granted under Order 39 CPC.

(f) SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THE COURT MAY THINK FIT.

This is a residuary provision under Order 39 rule 1 CPC which empowers the court to make such order as the court thinks fit
for the purpose of preventing damage,. Waste , alienation and sale of the property in dispute.
The residuary provision is to be used only when there is no specific provision for grant of injunction.

OTHER MATTERS TO BE KEPT IN WHILE GRANTING INJUNCTIONS .

When expert injunction is granted ,great care is to be taken at that stage because there is none from the other side of assist
the court. The same principles for grant of injunction are to be kept in mind at that stage also which are kept in mind at the
time of final disposal if injunction application. It should also be seen whether mandatory compliance of provisions regarding
maintainability of the suit has been made or not.
For example, where a notice U/s .80 CPC has been served in cases against government and public officers and whether
compliance of Section 90 CPC has been dispensed with. It should also be seen whether the suit is barred by any provision of
law or its time-barred. Likewise , it should be kept in mind that the jurisdiction of the court in a particular case to grant expert
injunctions is not prohibited under any law or special law under which the suit is filed. In cases where mere declaration is
sought an ad interim injunction is prayed for, it was held in Mohd. Ibrahim v. Pateshwari Prasad AIR 1960 Allahabad 252
that ad interim injunction in such suits cannot be granted.

© APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVERS – ORDER 40 R. 1 CPC

Appointment of Receiver is also considered as interim order because interim relief is granted to a party instituting a suit.
Under order 40 Rule 1 CPC where it appears to the court to be just and convenient it may appoint Receiver of any property
before or after the decree, it may remove person from possession or stody of the property and can commit the same to the
session custody or management of the receiver, Receiver can also be given power to bring and defind suits to collect rent ,
to manage the property and to do all acts for protection preservation and improvement of property and such other power as
the court may think fit. The power of appointment of Receiver is discretionary with the court . However ,discretion is not
exercised arbitrarily but on settled judicial principles . The plaintiff has to show in cases that the is very excellent chance of
success. Mere establishment of prima in…. case is not enough. Similarly , he has to they existence of emergency , danger
or demanding immediate agitation
Danger must be imminent and grage. No order is to be passed for appointment of receiver where it the effects of depriving
the defendant of de possession. The words, just and convenient mean just and convenient for protection of rights and
prevention of injuries. This is also based on equitable principle hence the plaintiff must come with clean hands. Latches ,delay
and acquiescence deisentitle the plaintiff of such relief.
Received can be appointed on the application of the plaintiff in suitable cases the court can suo moto appoint a Receiver.
Receiver can be appointed in respect of the property outside the jurisdiction of the court and also in respect of the property
which is not the subject matter of the suit. Order 40 CPC is silent about removal of receiver appointed by the court. However ,
power appoint Receiver implies power of his removal also and he can be removed by the Court on ground of in conduct or
where he is guilty of gross negligence or is not taking interest in the management of the property in his charge or he is not
keeping proper accounts . Orders for appointment of Receiver are appeasable orders.

(g) ARREST BEFORE JUDGEMENT – Order 38 Rule 1 CPC

Interim order are passed by the Court directing arrest of the defendant when ingredients of Order 38 Rule a CPC are made
out. When the court is satisfied by the affidavit or otherwise that the defendant with a view to delay, defeat or obstruct the
execution of process of the court or likely decree which may be passed against him, has left the local limits of the leave local
limits of courts’ jurisdiction of has removed or has disposed of whole part of his property form local limits of court’s jurisdiction
or has removed or has disposed of whole or part of his property form local limits of court’s jurisdiction or he is about to leave
India with a view to delay or obstruct the decree that may passed against him, the court may be passed against him, the
Court may issue warrant to arrest him and bring before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his
appearance.

(1) ATTACHEMNT BEFORE JUDGEMET – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC

Attachment before judgment is also in the nature of interim order because during the pendency of the suit the court makes
attachment of the property so that the interest of the plaintiff may not suffer. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC provides that when a
court is satisfied that the defendant with intend to of strict of delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against
him is about to dispose to which or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from
about to remove the wheel or any party of his property or is about the remove the whole or any part of his property from locals
limits of Court’s jurisdiction, it may order the defendant either to jurisdiction, it may order the defendant either to furnish
security for a sum specified in the order or appear and show cause why ….. should no furnish security
Conditional order of attachment of whole or part of the property also be made. A new provision has been introduced by the
amending Act that if attachment is made without compliance of sub-rule (1) it shall be void.

3. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

Interlocutory orders have been enumerated under Order 39 Rules 6 to 10 CPC . There kind of interlicutory orders are
contemplate under the so provisions.

(1) INTERIM SALE : Order 39 Rule 6 CPC

Order for interim sale can passed on the application of any party to the suit. Such application should be in relation to
moveable property being the subject. Matter of the suit of attached before judgment in such suits. The moveable property
should be subject to speedy or natural decay. The Court can order for interim sale for any other just and sufficient cause if it is
desirable to sell such property attance. Generally power of interim sale is exercise in relation to perishable articles.

(2) ORDER TO DEPSOIT MONEY IN COURT – Order 39 R. 10 CPC

In suits relating to money or moveable property where the defendant admits that be hold it in trust for such another party or
that it is due or belongs to another party, the court may order the same to be deposited in court or deliver to such person with
or without security till further orders.

(3) DETENTION, PRESERVATION AND INSPECTION OF SUBJECT MATTER …………………………..

On the application of any party to a suit and on such terms as the Court thinks fit, it may order for detention, preservation or
inspection of the subject-matter of suit. It may authorize any person to enter upon land for the aforesaid purposes. An order
passed under this provision is to be executed as an order in execution cases .
The order is not appeasable. Application under this provision is to be made it any time after the institution of the suit and the
defendant can also make such application at may time after his appearance. Normally notice is to be sent to the other party
before passing such order. However, in urgent cases where the object would be defeated order can be passed without
notice.

(4) STAY ORDERS

Stay orders also considered in the nature of interlocutory orders. Stay orders are passed by the appellate court and also by
the course passing the decree. The court which passed a decree can grant stay order before the expiry of appeal and the
execution of decree can be stayed when the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant if stay is
refused and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay. While passing such stay order the Court may
demand security for performance of decree. Expert stay order can also be passed . Order for deposition the amount as
condition for stay can be passed. When deposty not made or security is not filed, the Court shall not made an order for stay of
execution.

The appellate court can also stay the execution of decree under Order 41 Rules 5 CPC when appeal is filed before it.
However, mere filing of appeal does not operate as stay, Stay order become effective from the date of its communication to
the court. If , however, an affidavit is fioed on the personal knowledge of the party obtaining stay order , it may be acted upon
by the Court till order is received from the appellate court .

4. CIVIL CASES –MENING OF

(1) Interim orders in civil cases are not confined to suits only. In civil suits injunction can be granted under Order
 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
(2) In miscellaneous proceedings also injunction orders can be granted U/s , 151 CPC. Such miscellaneous
proceeding are proceedings under order 39 Rules 13 CPC , proceedings U/s . 144 CPC, proceedings
under Order IX rule 9 and order IX rule 4 CPC , and proceedings U/s . 47 CPC . In such proceedings
where property in dispute is likely to be damage, wasted or aliena ed at interim injunction can be granted
U/s ………………………………… 1 CPC
(3) In arbitration proceedings also interim orders in the nature of temporary injunction and appcintment of
Receiver can be passed U/s 41 of the Arbitration Act . Since the provisions of CPC apply to all proceedings
before the Court and appeal , the court can grant the interim relief when proceeding under Arbitration ACT is
pending before it.
(4) In matrimonial cases ad-interim injunction can be granted in appropriate cases. For inseance
>>>>>>>>………………………………………………………………………………(page no 17 note readable )
………….. be granted by a court in matrimonial cases.
(5) In appeals also , ad interim injunction can be granted within ate ambit of order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and
where these provision are not strictly applicable U/s . 151 CPC.
(6) In execution matters also where the property dispute is likely to be damage, wasted or sold, ad interim
injunction can be granted under inherent powers of the court. Demolition of property during pendency of
execution cases can be restrained by the executing court under inherent powers.

5. CONCLUSION

Interim orders have assumed great importance these days. The Courts therefore while granting ad-interim orders, should be
very careful and should not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Such orders should be issued accordance with settled judicial
principles for exercise of discretion. It should be kept in mind that lenient view in matters of granting injunction receives
general criticism from the litigant public and also from Government and other agencies. Consequently, no such order should
be passed which may, in effect , tarnish the image of the judicial institution. Administrative orders have been issued firm time
as to how such matters should be dealt with by various courts. These administrative orders are sometime misunderstood as
directed towards interference in the independent functioning of the Court . That is however , not the purpose of such
administrative directions. On the other hand, administrative directions are issued only remind the presiding officers what they
should not …….. within the framework of the law so that the image of the Institution may be raised.