A temporary injunction in CPC serves as a vital tool to maintain order and

protect the interests of parties involved in a dispute. This court-issued order,

with a limited duration, is designed to either prevent someone from taking
specific actions or compel them to do certain things until a final verdict is
reached.
The underlying principles of a temporary injunction revolve around ensuring
fairness and preventing irreparable harm during the course of litigation. To
grant such an injunction, courts consider factors like the existence of a prima
facie case, a balance of convenience and the potential for harm that cannot be
remedied through monetary compensation.

Temporary Injunction Meaning

A temporary injunction is a court order that’s given while a case is ongoing to
keep things the way they are until the case is finally decided. Its main purpose
is to stop someone from causing serious harm to another party during the
legal process. This idea was made clear in the case of “M/S Gujarat Pottling
Co. Ltd. & Ors v. The Coca Cola Company & Ors. (1995)”.

The rules for temporary injunctions are found in the Civil Procedure Code of
1908 and here’s what they say:
● Section 94 of the law is about preventing interference with justice. Part
(c) deals with giving out temporary injunctions and has rules for making
sure people follow them, like putting someone in civil prison or selling
their property to make them comply.
● Section 95 allows the court to consider giving money to the defendant if
the plaintiff’s claim gets dismissed.
● Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) has a bunch of rules about
temporary injunctions.

Temporary Injunction in CPC

Temporary injunctions in India are regulated by the Civil Procedure Code of
1908 and the specific rules for their grant and application are as follows:
Order XXXIX, Rule 1: This rule allows the court to grant a temporary
injunction under CPC when it’s considered fair and appropriate to do so in
order to prevent a breach of an obligation or harm caused by a genuine fear of
such a breach.
Order XXXIX, Rule 2: This rule lays out the conditions that must be met for a
temporary injunction to be granted. These conditions include having a strong
initial case, a balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable harm.
Order XXXIX, Rule 3: This rule explains the process for getting a temporary
injunction in CPC and what you need to do, including submitting an application
supported by a sworn statement.
Order XXXIX, Rule 4: This rule covers the court’s authority to seize property
when it’s necessary to ensure that a temporary injunction isn’t undermined.
Order XXXIX, Rule 5: This rule allows the court to change or cancel a
temporary injunction at any point during the proceedings if it’s appropriate
based on the situation.
Order XXXIX, Rule 6: This rule deals with how long a temporary injunction in
CPC lasts. It can stay in effect until a specific time or until the court says
otherwise.
Order XXXIX, Rule 7: This rule explains what happens if someone disobeys
or violates a temporary injunction. It includes potential contempt of court
proceedings and other remedies for the harmed party.
These rules set out the structure for the granting and management of
temporary injunction under CPC. It’s crucial for both parties seeking or
challenging a temporary injunction to be familiar with these rules and follow
the outlined procedures.

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:

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.

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.

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.
These three requirements serve as important criteria for deciding whether to
grant a temporary injunction in legal cases.

In Mandati Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra (MANU/SC/7567/2008 : AIR 2008

SC 2291), the court emphasised that when considering an application for the
grant of a temporary injunction in CPC, it’s not sufficient to only consider the
fundamental elements such as the existence of a prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury.
Granting an injunction is an equitable remedy and the court must also take
into account the conduct of the parties involved. Specifically, if one party has
remained silent for an extended period and allowed another party to
exclusively deal with a property, they may not be entitled to an injunction. The
court will not intervene solely because the property in question is valuable.
The court’s primary goal is to protect the interests of all parties involved.
In Paidsetti Bhanknarayna v. Paidsetti Rajeshwar Rao (AIR 1999 Ori 92),
the court observed that it’s not always necessary for the plaintiff to prove their
absolute title to the property in dispute. It is sufficient if the plaintiff can raise a
legitimate question regarding the existence of the right they claim.
Furthermore, if the plaintiff can convince the court that the property in question
should be preserved in its current condition until the legal question is resolved,
that may justify the grant of an injunction. This highlights that in certain cases,
a party seeking an injunction need not establish full ownership but must show
a genuine claim and a need to protect the property during legal proceedings.

How Long Does Temporary Injunction Last?

The duration of a temporary injunction is determined by the court when it
grants the injunction. According to “Order XXXIX, Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code of 1908,” a temporary injunction can remain in effect until a
specified time or until the court issues further orders.
The duration of a temporary injunction in CPC depends on the type of
injunction granted:
Pendente Lite Injunction: This type of injunction remains in force until the
conclusion of the ongoing legal proceedings and the final decision of the court.
If the lawsuit is dismissed, the temporary injunction is also lifted.
Permanent Injunction Lawsuit: In cases involving a permanent injunction, a
temporary injunction issued by the court can be made permanent as part of
the final decree. This means that the temporary injunction under CPC
effectively becomes a permanent measure as determined by the court’s final
decree.
In summary, the validity of a temporary injunction in CPC varies based on the
nature of the injunction. For pendente lite injunctions, it lasts until the
conclusion of the legal proceedings, while in suits for permanent injunctions,
the temporary injunction may become permanent through the court’s final
decree.

Can an Injunction Be Granted to the Defendant?

The Supreme Court issued a notice in the case of Tamminedi Ramakrishna
Etc. v. N. Jayalakshmi. The central issue was whether Defendant had the
right to seek an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (c) of the Code.
The SLP (Special Leave Petition) challenges the Karnataka High Court’s
order, which affirmed the Trial Court’s decision and granted a temporary
injunction in favour of the Defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (a), (b) and
(c) read with Section 151 of the Code. The High Court attempted to distinguish
the three sub-rules of Order XXXIX Rule 1, suggesting that sub-rules (b) and
(c) provide remedies primarily for Plaintiff, while sub-rule (a) is a more general
provision.
Various High Courts have expressed differing opinions on whether a
Defendant can seek an injunction against a Plaintiff without filing a
counter-claim. The High Court of Travancore and Kochi (formerly) and several
other High Courts have held that a Defendant can request a temporary
injunction against a Plaintiff if their claim is related to or incidental to the
Plaintiff’s cause of action.
In the case of Ganga Bricks Udhyog v. Jai Bhagwan Swarup, the Allahabad
High Court granted interim relief to Defendant by requiring Plaintiff to provide
security for any potential losses incurred by Defendant if the lawsuit ended
unfavourably. This decision recognised that Defendants could suffer harm if
the claim was dismissed or if the status quo was maintained during the
lawsuit.
In conclusion, the Code provides various avenues for parties to seek
temporary injunctions under CPC. The legislature’s intent is evident in the
terms used in Order XXXIX Rule 1, which specifically allows remedies for
Plaintiff against Defendant’s actions or inactions under sub-rules (b) and (c).
Only sub-rule (a) is written in a neutral manner. Consequently, the legislature
intentionally distinguishes between remedies available to Plaintiffs and
Defendants under the Code. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Court
to rule in a manner contrary to the legislative objective.

Can an Injunction Be Issued Against A Court?

Generally, courts are granted immunity from temporary injunctions in CPC to
protect their independence and ensure the proper administration of justice.
This principle is rooted in the concept of judicial immunity. Courts and judges
need certain protections to carry out their functions without undue
interference. However, there are limited circumstances in which an injunction
may indirectly impact a court’s actions or decisions.
For instance, if a court exceeds its jurisdiction or violates established legal
principles, a party may seek relief from a higher court through writs like
certiorari or prohibition. These writs can indirectly affect the proceedings of the
court in question. Additionally, if a court is involved in administrative or
non-judicial functions, it may be subject to injunctions in those specific
contexts.

It’s essential to recognise that such situations are exceptional. In general,

courts enjoy immunity from injunctions to uphold the proper administration of
justice and safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion
A temporary injunction in CPC is a court-issued order that temporarily
restrains a party from taking specific actions or compels them to do certain
things for a limited period, typically until a final decision is reached in a legal
dispute. It aims to maintain the status quo, preventing irreparable harm or
injury to one party while a case is being litigated. To grant a temporary
injunction, courts assess whether there’s a prima facie case, a balance of
convenience and the potential for irreparable harm. It’s a legal tool used to
ensure fairness and protect the rights of parties involved in ongoing legal
proceedings.