COMPARE THE REMEDY OF INJUNCTION UNDER THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT WITH THAT UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

ABSTRACT

The legal concept of injunction is an essential legal remedy for preventing wrongdoing or enforcing particular duties in civil disputes. By preventing a party from acting (prohibitory injunction) or forcing them to act in a particular manner (mandatory injunction), it acts as an equitable remedy to safeguard justice. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are the two main laws that govern the remedy of injunction in the Indian legal system. Although injunctions are permitted under both laws, they varies in term of nature, duration, legal provisions, purpose and enforcement methods. A comparative analysis of remedy of injunction under Specific Relief Act and Code of Civil Procedure highlights variability in these remedies. The Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC) regulates the procedural aspects of temporary injunctions whereas the Specific Relief Act concentrates on substantive relief. Whereas temporary injunction under CPC may result in action under Order 39, Rule 2A for disobedience, permanent injunction under Specific Relief Act may result in contempt of court. This article focuses how both laws protect rights at varying stages of a legal dispute in comparable ways. While the Code of Civil Procedure provides immediate relief to stop injustice before a final decision is made, The Specific Relief Act guarantees long-term enforcement of rights, the article concludes by examining judicial interpretations and practical implication.

KEYWORDS

Injunction, Remedy, Specific Relief Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Comparative analysis, Provisions, Judicial decisions, temporary and permanent injunction.

INTRODUCTION

An injunction is a court order that requires a party to perform a specific act or to abstain from performing it. It is a remedy in the form of a court order directed at the specific individual that either orders him to perform a specific act (mandatory injunction) or forbids him to from performing or continuing to perform a specific act (prohibitory injunction). The legal framework governing injunctions is provided by two main laws the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Code of Civil Procedure offers temporary relief to preserve the status quo until the case is resolved, whereas the Specific Relief Act focuses on final relief following adjudication.

A permanent injunction restrain a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on merits at conclusion of the trial after hearing both the parties to the suit. It is governed by sections 30 to 42 of the Specific relief act, 1963. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction is that which, restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until the further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit.[1]Indian jurisprudence specifically addresses the law of injunction. Order 39(1) and (2) provide the legal guidelines for injunctions, including ex-parte ad interim and permanent injunction. Order 38, on other side, deals with interim measures, which may or may not entail injunction. It focuses especially on Rule 5, which deals with the need for an individual to provide security. Moreover, Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 explain the two types of injunctions (temporary and permanent). Although injunctions are a remedy provided by both the laws, there are significant differences in their application, scope, and goals. While the Code of Civil Procedure mainly addressed procedural safeguards to prevent interim injustice, the Specific Relief Act focuses on the final determination of rights. The legal principles, applicability, and judicial interpretation of these injunctions are highlighted by comparative analysis.

DEFINITION OF INJUNCTION

Under Specific Relief Act: An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or is refrained from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the court addressed to a particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).[2]

An injunction is a legal process in which someone who has infringed or threatened to infringe on another’s rights is barred from continuing or initiating the wrongful act.

Under Code of Civil Procedure: The CPC offers procedural guidelines for providing temporary relief, guaranteeing that rights are upheld prior to the delivery of a final judgment, but it does not provide an explicit definition of injunction.

Sections 94 and 95 of the CPC stipulate those rules to be created under which a court might direct injunctive reliefs in a specific instance, and that rules be prescribed under Order 39. Injunctions, ex parte ad interim and permanent, are dealt with in Order 39 (1) and (2), whilst interim measures, which may or may not be interim injunctions, are dealt with in Order 38 and especially Rule 5 where we ask someone to give security.[3]

Injunction is a protective measure to preserve or prevent the loss of an asset, protect someone against personal harm, prevent loss or damage to reputation and safeguard business or personal interest.^[4]

Example of Injunction: A company files a defamation case, alleging that the defendant (other party to the case) is publishing or spreading false information about the company, which can cause loss to the company, It may take several months to pass a judgment to prevent the other company from publishing such harmful information about the company. Thus, to prevent loss to the company, it may file an application to grant an order to prevent the other person from publishing false information till the final judgment is made. Such an order preventing the other person from doing a wrongful act, i.e. publishing wrong information, is known as an injunction order.[5]

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INJUNCTION

Nature and Scope of Injunction under both laws:

The Specific Relief Act is a substantive law which establishes injunctions as permanent legal remedies. When no other suitable remedy is available, it mainly concentrates on making sure that legal rights are upheld through judicial intervention.

However, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure specially allows for temporary injunctions, which are issued to maintain the status quo while a case is pending. As temporary measures, these injunctions only take effect until the suit’s verdict is rendered. When there is proven urgency, the CPC also permits ex-parte temporary injunction (Order 39, Rule 3).

Purpose:

In situations where monetary compensation is insufficient, the Specific Relief Act seeks to offer definitive and enforceable relief. It is applied in cases involving contracts, property rights, and wrongdoing where a court order is required to stop irreversible damage.

The Code of Civil Procedure, on the other hand, prioritizes procedural protections by issuing temporary injunctions to stop harm in the interim while a case is still pending. A temporary injunction’s main objective is to protect rights and stop irreversible harm prior to the final decision.

Duration and Nature of injunction:

According to the Specific Relief Act, Following the issuance of a final judgment, injunctions issued under Specific Relief Act are permanent in nature and last indefinitely. They can’t be given temporarily.

According to the CPC, injunctions are only temporary or interim and end when the law suit is resolved. They only offer relief until the court makes a decision; they do not establish final rights.

For example, a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the CPC may stop construction until the matter is settled if someone erects an illegal building on contested land. However, once the plaintiff’s ownership is established, construction may be permanently prohibited by a perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act.

Enforcement and Violation Implications:

There are significant consequences for violating an injunction under both laws:

If a perpetual injunction is broken, the court may use contempt proceedings to enforce compliance under the Specific Relief Act, and the violator may be subject to fines or imprisonment.

Violating a temporary injunction may result in penalties under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as property attachment or civil contempt imprisonment.

Although strict enforcement is guaranteed by both statutes, the SRA penalties are severe because they deal with final relief, while the CPC penalties concentrate on upholding procedural discipline during the litigation process.

RELATED PROVISIONS

Injunctions under Specific Relief Act, 1963:

Section 36[6]: This section establishes the general rule that an injunction is used to provide preventive relief. The court has the authority to issue an injunction as a permanent remedy (final relief under SRA) or as a temporary remedy (under CPC).

Section 37[7]: The distinction between temporary and permanent injunctions is made in this section. The Code of Civil Procedure (Order 39, Rule 1 & 2) governs temporary injunctions, which are only issued while a lawsuit is pending. Contrarily, permanent injunctions, which are issued following a final determination of the plaintiff’s rights, totally prohibit the defendant from carrying out a specific act indefinitely.

Section 38^[8]: Under this section, to stop an obligation from being destroyed in the applicant’s favour, a perpetual injunction is obtained.

Section 39^[9]: This section states that, in order to stop a violation or correct an incorrect circumstance, a mandatory injunction mandates the defendant to carry out a certain action.

Section 40^[10]: If the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s wrongdoing, this section permits them to request both monetary compensation and an injunction. However, the plaintiff cannot later demand compensation if they did not initially demand it in their lawsuit.

Section 41^[11]: This section outlines the circumstances under which an injunction cannot be granted.

To restrain legal proceedings in another court.
To prevent a lawful act that is not wrongful in itself.
To enforce an unlawful agreement or contract.
Against the government, except in specific cases.
When the plaintiff has an alternative and equally effective legal remedy.

Section 42[12]: Injunction is contract cases, especially those pertaining to the enforcement of negative covenants, like non-compete provisions in employment contracts, are covered in this section. Even in cases where specific performance of the contract itself cannot be granted, it enables the court to prevent a party from violating contractual obligation.

Injunctions under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

The provisions of Order 39 also provide for the issuance of ex parte injunctions, which are granted without giving notice to the defendant. An ex parte injunction may be granted in cases of urgency, where delay in granting the injunction would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff.[13]

Rule 1 to 2 of Order 39-

Rule 1 for a temporary injunction, When property is in danger of being wasted, alienated, or sold improperly.

Rule 2 permits injunctions, In order to stop contract violations or wrongdoing that results in irreversible harm.

Rule 3 permits the issuance of ex-parte injunctions, If the applicant can demonstrate urgency and the reasons for issuing the order without notice are documented.

Rule 2A of order 39 also addresses the penalties for breaking an injunction, which can include imprisonment, property attachment, or contempt proceedings.

Additionally, the enforcement of a decree for an injunction or particular performance is covered in Rule 32 of Order XXI. Order XXXIX addresses interlocutory orders and temporary injunctions in particular.[14]

Section 94^[15]: This section gives wide discretion to guarantee that justice is done. Includes the authority to temporary injunctions to stop damage or preserve the status quo, to prevent injustice, provide additional suitable remedies and hold, protect, or examine the disputed property.

Section 95^[16]: It says about compensation for wrongfully obtained injunction, the defendant may seek damages if a plaintiff secures a temporary injunction on fake or inadequate grounds. The purpose is to deter baseless or malicious requests for injunctions.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh[17]: The three requirements for issuing an injunction, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm were upheld in this case. According to the Court, the applicant must show a compelling legal right that needs to be protected by an injunction; the mere possibility of hardship is insufficient.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Girdharbhai R. Chhaniyara[18]: In this case, The Supreme Court ruled that only when the petitioner has a clear right that can be upheld by injunctive relief can temporary injunctions be granted.
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd v. Coca-cola Co.^{^[19]} : The Supreme Court issued an injunction to stop a party from breaking a negative covenant in a business deal and maintained the covenant’s legality. According to the court, if contractual duties are fair and legal, injunctions may be utilized to enforce them.
Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial bank Ltd.^[20]: The Court decided that unless there is distinctive proof of fraud or irretrievable harm, an injunction prohibiting a bank from upholding a guarantee should not be issued.
M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan[21]: The Supreme Court emphasized that if the petitioner does not demonstrate a legitimate legal right over the subject matter, an injunction should not be issued. The Court reaffirmed that the person requesting an injunction must come to the court with pure intentions because it is an equitable remedy.
Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao[22]: The court held that, even in cases when a tenant’s lease has ended, they cannot be evicted from their property without completing the required legal procedures.

CONCLUSION

Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are compared to highlights their distinct yet complementary roles in the legal framework. Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code allows for the issuance of interlocutory orders and temporary injunctions to preserve the status quo until the case is resolved. In addition to permitting the issuance of ex parte injunctions in emergency situations, the provisions of this order permit the granting of various kinds of injunctions. The court has the discretion to grant an injunction under Order 39, and it will take into account a number of factors before making that decision. In order to safeguard rights and stop harm, the Specific Relief Act of 1963 provides injunctions as a legal remedy. While Section 39 offers mandatory injunctions to force someone to take action to stop injustice, Section 38 permits perpetual injunctions to permanently prevent someone from violating a legal right. When money or other remedies are insufficient, the Act guarantees that injunctions are granted. Injunctions cannot be granted in certain situations, such as halting legal actions or court proceedings, as listed in Section 41. When other remedies fail, the Act essentially helps prevent harm and offers equitable solutions.

To conclude, The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regulates procedural aspects, especially with regard to temporary injunctions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, even though the Specific Relief Act contains substantive provisions for a variety of injunction types, including mandatory and perpetual injunctions.

REFERENCES

[1] Chapter 10- Temporary Injunction (Order XXXIX), Manupatra, (last visited Jan. 28, 2025), http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Code-of-Civil-Procedure/Chapter10.htm

[2] Kartik Mago, Injunction under Specific Relief Act, Soo LEGAL, (12 Feb 2019), https://www.soolegal.com/roar/injunction-under-specific-relief-act.

[3] Shreya Gupta, Injunction Under CPC: An Overview, Tax Guru, (20 Jul 2022), https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/injunction-cpc-overview.html.

[4] Paul Britton, What is an injunction? Everything You Need to Know, BRITTON & TIME, (Oct. 15, 2024), https://brittontime.com/2021/04/26/what -is-an-injunction-everything-you-need-to-know/.

[5] Mayashree Acharya, What is injunction, Clear Tax, (1^st July 2024), https://cleartax.in/s/what-is-injunction.

[6] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 36, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[7] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 37, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[8] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 38, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[9] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 39, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[10] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 40, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[11] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 41, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[12] Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 42, No. 47, Act of Parliament, 1963 (India).

[13] Century Law Firm, Understanding Injunctions In India: Types & Process, (last visited Jan 31, 2025, 10:23 AM), https://www.mondaq.com/india/civil-law/1467548/understanding-injunctions-in-india-types-process-%7C-best-lawyer-for-injunction-video.

[14] Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav, Declaration and Injunction Suits, (Jan 23, 2025, 1:26 PM), https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec03333cb763facc6ce398ff83845f22/uploads/2024/03/2024031477.pdf.

[15] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 94, No. 05, Act of Parliament, 1908 (India).

[16] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 95, No. 05, Act of Parliament, 1908 (India).

¹² Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav, Declaration and Injunction Suits, (Jan 23, 2025, 1:26 PM), https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec03333cb763facc6ce398ff83845f22/uploads/2024/03/2024031477.pdf.

[17] Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276.

[18] Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Girdharbhai R. Chhaniyara, AIR 1997 SC 267B.

[19] Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. V. Coca-Cola Co., AIR 1995 SC 2372.

[20] Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. V. United Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 1272.

[21] M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, AIR 2006 SC 3275.

[22] Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.