APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER XXXIX OF CPC

This article is written by Sonam of 2^nd Semester of Hidayatullah National Law University

ABSTRACT

This research paper explores the concept of temporary injunctions, a vital legal remedy used to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm during ongoing litigation. The study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing temporary injunctions, their scope, and the practical considerations involved in their application.

KEY WORDS

Temporary injunction, CPC, preventive injunction, mandatory injunction, order 39.

INTRODUCTION

The application for a temporary injunction order is a legal remedy that can be sought by individuals or entities to protect their rights and interests during the pendency of a lawsuit. In India, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides for the grant of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX. This article aims to shed light on the concept of temporary injunctions, the process of seeking such an order, and its significance in the Indian legal system. ([1])

UNDERSTANDING INJUNCTION

An injunction is a legal order issued by a court in response to a request from a plaintiff, directing a defendant or a party made a defendant to refrain from engaging in certain actions or preventing their agents or employees from doing so. The purpose of an injunction is to prevent a defendant from carrying out or continuing actions that are deemed unjust, unfair, and harmful to the plaintiff, and for which adequate compensation would not be sufficient to rectify the harm caused.

Different types of injunctions serve distinct purposes in the legal system. Here is a brief explanation of the types of injunctions commonly recognized:([2])

• Preliminary Injunction: Also known as an interim injunction, a preliminary injunction is a temporary measure granted by the court at the early stages of a case. It aims to preserve the status quo until a final decision can be made. Preliminary injunctions are usually issued to prevent immediate and irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit.
• Preventive Injunction: A preventive injunction is a type of injunction that prohibits a party from engaging in specific actions that would cause harm or violate the rights of another party. It is granted to prevent anticipated harm or prevent the violation of legal rights.
• Mandatory Injunction: Unlike other types of injunctions that focus on restraining actions, a mandatory injunction directs a party to perform a specific act or fulfil an obligation. It is typically granted when it is necessary to enforce a positive duty or to prevent the violation of a legal right.
• Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): A temporary restraining order is an emergency measure issued by the court to provide immediate relief and maintain the status quo until a hearing for a preliminary injunction can be held. TROs are granted when there is a need for urgent action to prevent irreparable harm.
• Permanent Injunction: A permanent injunction is a final and conclusive order issued by the court after a full hearing on the merits of the case. It prohibits a party from engaging in certain actions permanently or until further order of the court. Permanent injunctions are typically granted as part of the final judgment in a lawsuit.

These various types of injunctions find their legal basis in statutes such as the Specific Relief Act of 1963, which provides the legal framework for granting injunctions in India. The procedure for seeking and enforcing injunctions is guided by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908.

In conclusion, injunctions serve as crucial legal remedies to protect rights, prevent harm, and maintain the status quo during legal proceedings. The specific type of injunction sought depends on the nature of the case and the relief sought by the party seeking the injunction. The application and enforcement of injunctions follow the guidelines established in relevant legislation and procedural laws.

UNDERSTANDING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

A temporary injunction is an interim order granted by a court to preserve the status quo until the final determination of a case. It is a preventive relief aimed at preventing irreparable harm or injury to a party during the course of litigation. The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the subject matter of the dispute in its existing condition until the merits of the case can be decided. The aforementioned aim was highlighted in the case of “M/S Gujarat Pottling Co. Ltd. & Ors v. The Coca Cola Company & Ors. (1995)”. ([3])

The Civil Procedure Code of 1908 governs temporary injunctions. The following are the provisions that govern it:

• Section 94 of the law aims to prevent the obstruction of justice. Subclause (c) pertains to the granting of temporary injunctions and provides provisions for enforcing compliance, including the possibility of holding the individual in civil prison or ordering the attachment and sale of their property.
• Section 95 enables the court, in the event of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, to consider a request by the defendant for compensation and award it accordingly.
• Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) encompasses various provisions related to temporary injunctions.

ORDERS THAT GOVERN TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Temporary injunctions in India are governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The specific provisions that regulate the grant and application of temporary injunctions are as follows:([4])

1. Order XXXIX, Rule 1: This rule empowers the court to grant a temporary injunction when it is deemed just and convenient to do so to prevent the breach of an obligation or injury arising from any real apprehension of such breach.
2. Order XXXIX, Rule 2: This rule specifies the conditions that must be fulfilled for the grant of a temporary injunction, such as the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the possibility of irreparable injury.
3. Order XXXIX, Rule 3: This rule provides for the procedure of granting a temporary injunction and the necessary requirements for the application, including the filing of an application supported by an affidavit.
4. Order XXXIX, Rule 4: This rule deals with the power of the court to attach property when it is necessary to prevent the frustration of a temporary injunction.
5. Order XXXIX, Rule 5: This rule allows the court to modify or vacate a temporary injunction at any stage of the proceedings if it deems fit based on the circumstances of the case.
6. Order XXXIX, Rule 6: This rule governs the duration of a temporary injunction, specifying that it shall remain in force until a specified time or further orders from the court.
7. Order XXXIX, Rule 7: This rule provides for the consequences of disobedience or breach of a temporary injunction, including contempt of court proceedings and other remedies available to the aggrieved party.

These provisions outline the framework within which temporary injunctions are granted and governed in India under the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It is important for parties seeking or contesting a temporary injunction to be familiar with these provisions and adhere to the procedural requirements outlined therein.

GROUNDS FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

The application for a temporary injunction order must include essential details such as the names and addresses of the parties involved, a brief description of the dispute, the relief sought, and the specific grounds justifying the need for an injunction. The applicant should also provide any supporting documents, such as contracts, agreements, or other evidence that strengthens their case for the injunction. The ruling in the case of “Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Pralhad Singh and Others (1991)” ([5]) has definitively outlined the three fundamental prerequisites for the grant of a temporary injunction.

The grounds on which a temporary injunction order may be granted under Order XXXIX of the CPC include the following:

• Prima facie case: The applicant must demonstrate that they have a strong case on the merits. This means they must provide sufficient evidence to establish that their claim is likely to succeed. A lawsuit comprises a contentious issue that is subject to serious disagreement. The circumstances surrounding this issue suggest a likelihood of the plaintiff or the defendant being entitled to relief. The term “prima facie case” does not imply that the plaintiff or the defendant presents an indisputable argument that is guaranteed to succeed in a trial. Rather, it signifies that the case they present in support of their injunction must possess sufficient merit to avoid immediate dismissal.

According to the ruling in the case of “Kashi Nath Samstan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy (2010) I SCC 689, 692([6])”, it was established that a prima facie case must be established prior to granting an injunction. The court will only consider other factors if there is a prima facie case. If the applicant fails to establish a prima facie case, they are not entitled to a temporary injunction.

• Irreparable loss or injury: The applicant must show that if the injunction is not granted, they would suffer irreparable loss or injury that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. If an individual were to suffer irreparable harm related to the lawsuit before their legal rights are established in the trial, it would result in a significant injustice. However, it is important to recognize that certain situations, such as the frustration over the loss of something with sentimental value, would not be considered as irreparable damage. Conversely, things that can be remedied by nature may be deemed irreparable damage if the court lacks a fair or reasonable solution. Irreparable harm often occurs when the injury is continuous or repetitive, or when the only legal remedy would require multiple lawsuits. At times, the term “irreparable damage” refers to the difficulty in quantifying the amount of damages inflicted. However, the mere challenge of proving an injury does not automatically establish irreparable harm.

In the landmark case of “American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd ([7])” in 1975, the court articulated a crucial principle regarding irreparable harm. The essence of this principle can be are as follows:

If the harm suffered by the plaintiff can be adequately compensated through monetary damages, which the defendant is financially capable of paying, then a preliminary injunction should generally not be granted, regardless of the apparent strength of the plaintiff’s case at that particular stage. However, if monetary damages would not suffice to provide a suitable remedy to the plaintiff in the event of a favourable trial outcome, then the court should consider the harm as irreparable.

• Balance of convenience: The court will consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction. This means that the court will weigh the potential harm caused to the applicant if the injunction is not granted against the harm caused to the respondent if the injunction is imposed.

Upon receiving the application, the court will evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It may also issue notice to the respondent, giving them an opportunity to present their case. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the temporary injunction based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is important to note that a temporary injunction is an interim measure and is subject to modification or revocation by the court at any stage of the proceedings. Once granted, the injunction must be obeyed by both parties until further orders from the court. Violation of the injunction can result in contempt of court proceedings.

HOW LONG DOES TEMPORARY INJUNCTION LAST?

The duration of a temporary injunction is determined by the court when granting the injunction. As per “Order XXXIX, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908”, a temporary injunction can remain in force until a specified time or until further orders from the court.

The duration of a temporary injunction is contingent upon the specific type of injunction that has been granted. In the case of a pendente lite injunction, its validity extends until the conclusion of the ongoing legal proceedings and the final decision of the court. If the lawsuit itself is dismissed, the temporary injunction is also vacated.

On the other hand, if the lawsuit pertains to a permanent injunction, a temporary injunction issued by the court can be made perpetual or permanent as part of a final decree. This means that the temporary injunction effectively becomes a permanent measure as determined by the court’s decree.

To summarize, the validity of a temporary injunction varies depending on the nature of the injunction. In the case of pendente lite injunctions, it lasts until the conclusion of the proceedings, while in suits for permanent injunctions, the temporary injunction may become permanent through the court’s final decree.

CAN INJUNCTION BE ISSUED AGAINST A COURT?

Generally, an injunction cannot be issued directly against a court. This principle is based on the concept of judicial immunity, which grants courts and judges certain protections to carry out their functions independently and without undue interference. However, there are certain limited circumstances where an injunction may indirectly affect a court’s actions or decisions.

For example, in cases where a court is acting beyond its jurisdiction or in violation of established legal principles, a party may seek relief from a higher court through writs such as certiorari or prohibition, which can indirectly impact the court’s proceedings. Additionally, if a court is involved in administrative or non-judicial functions, it may be subject to injunctions in those specific contexts.

However, it is important to note that such situations are exceptional, and the general principle is that courts enjoy immunity from injunctions to ensure the proper administration of justice and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the application for a temporary injunction order under Order XXXIX of the CPC is a vital step in seeking judicial relief to maintain the status quo during the pendency of a case. By satisfying the prescribed grounds and providing relevant evidence, an applicant can increase their chances of obtaining the desired injunction.

---

[1] “Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/order-39-cpc-temporary-injunction-and-interlocutory-orders/ (last visited 25^th June 2023)”

[2] “Lawcorner, https://lawcorner.in/temporary-injunction-under-cpc/ (last visited 25^th June 2023)”

[3] “Gujarat Pottling Co. Ltd. & Ors v. The Coca Cola Company & Ors 1995 SCC (5) 545”

[4] “Ipleader, https://blog.ipleaders.in/order-39-cpc-temporary-injunction-and-interlocutory-orders/ (last visited 26^th June 2023)”

[5] “Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Pralhad Singh and Others (1991), AIR 1993 SC 276”

[6] “Kashi Nath Samstan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy (2010) I SCC 689, 692”

[7] American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd, [1975] 2 WLR 316