1.

Introduction:
Injunction acts in personam i.e. it does not run with the property. For instance, ‘A’ the plaintiff gets an
injunction against ‘B’ forbidding him to erect a wall. ‘B’ sells the property to ‘C’. In such a case, the sale
does carry an injunction with it. An injunction may be issued against individuals, public bodies or even
the State. Disobedience of the order of an injunction is punishable as contempt of court. There are three
characteristics of an injunction. They are as follows.

 A judicial process.

 The relief obtained is restraint or prevention.

 The act restrained is wrongful.

There are basically two types of injunction as provided by section 36 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act with the head ‘Preventive relief how granted’ reads as,
“Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual”. As per
provisions of section 36 injunctions are either temporary (interlocutory) or perpetual.

2. Meaning of temporary injunction

Temporary Injunction refers to the Judicial Intervention of maintaining a ‘status quo’ i.e ‘existing
condition’ of a thing applied by either of the parties as an interim relief during the pendency of
proceedings of a case. It is an order of the court that restrains (Prohibitory injunction) or requires a
person to do a particular act (Mandatory Injunction).

It is in the nature of protective relief granted keeping in mind the rights of both the parties to prevent a
future irreparable injury.

Temporary injunction meaning in Indian law has been defined under Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 as, “Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further
order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).”

3. Temporary Injunctions
The procedure for granting temporary injunctions is not governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 but
governed by the rules laid down in Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code which reads as
follows.

“A temporary injunction may be granted in the following cases:

1. For the protection of interest in the property

This category will cover the following cases
(a) That property in dispute is in danger of being wasted or alienated by any party to the suit or
wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or

(b) That the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his
creditors; and

(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.”

The court may by the order grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain such act or make such order for
the purpose of staying and preventing the damage of wasting, alienation, sale or disposition of the
property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit.

2. Injunction to restrain, repetition or continuance of breach

In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury, of any
kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may at any time after the
commencement the suit and either after or before judgement, apply to the court for a temporary
injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or an injury complained of,
or any breach of contract or injury arising out of same contract.

4. Discretionary Relief
It is to be noted that grant of an injunction is at the discretion of the court i.e. it is not the right of an
individual to get the injunction. Section 36 expressly lays down that, “Preventive relief is granted at the
discretion of the court by an injunction, temporary or perpetual”. Therefore the court will grant a
temporary injunction if the following conditions are satisfied by the case:

1. The plaintiff must be able to establish a prima facie case. He is not required to establish the clear
title but a substantial question that requires to be investigated and that matter should be
preserved in the same status as it is until the injunction is finally disposed of.

2. An irreparable injury may be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused and that there is
no other remedy open to the applicant by which he could protect himself from the feared injury.

3. The balance of convenience requires that the injunction should be granted and compensation in
money would not serve an adequate relief.

It is to be noted that it is a settled principle of law that if in a suit where there is no permanent
injunction sought for in the final analysis, ordinarily a temporary injunction cannot be granted. So, the
principles that govern the grant of a perpetual injunction would govern the grant of a temporary
injunction also.

In Ishwarbhai v Bhanushali Nanda case where in a suit for specific performance, there was no prayer for
a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the suit land by way of sale
till the disposal of the suit. But the plaintiff in a suit prayed for a temporary injunction which was not
granted because of the settled principle.
 5. Grounds of Temporary Injunction in CPC
The case of Dalpat Kumar And Another v. Pralhad Singh And Others (1991) has established three key
requirements for application for temporary injunction and granting a temporary injunction under CPC.
They are:

A. Prima Facie Case

This means that in a lawsuit, there must be a serious and disputed question for a temporary injunction
in CPC. The facts surrounding this question should indicate a reasonable likelihood of the plaintiff or
defendant being entitled to relief. It’s important to note that a prima facie case doesn’t require an
irrefutable argument that’s certain to succeed at trial. Rather, it means that the case presented for the
injunction should have sufficient merit to not be dismissed outright.

B. Irreparable Loss
If an individual were to suffer an irreparable loss related to the lawsuit before their legal rights are
determined at trial, it would result in grave injustice. However, it’s essential to understand that losses
such as the sentimental value of an item typically won’t be considered irreparable. On the other hand,
damages that cannot be adequately remedied through legal means, especially when there’s no fair or
reasonable solution, may be regarded as irreparable.

Irreparable harm can also refer to situations where the injury is ongoing or repetitive, or where it can
only be remedied through multiple legal actions. Sometimes, the term “irreparable damage” relates to
the difficulty of quantifying the amount of harm suffered, but mere difficulty in proving injury does not
establish irreparable harm.

C. Balance of Convenience
The court must weigh the circumstances of both parties and compare the potential harm or
inconvenience that could result from withholding the injunction versus granting it. In essence, the court
should determine whether the harm or inconvenience caused by not granting the injunction would be
greater than what could occur if it were granted.

6. Conclusion:
Injunctions are court orders that prevent certain actions to protect rights or maintain the status quo.
Governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the Civil Procedure Code, injunctions can be temporary or
permanent and are granted at the court’s discretion. Temporary injunctions provide interim relief to
avoid irreparable harm and require a strong case, potential for irreparable loss, and a favorable balance
of convenience.
A temporary injunction is granted when the plaintiff shows a substantial case with no adequate remedy
otherwise. Courts assess these criteria carefully to prevent unjust harm to either party until the case is
fully resolved.