Q. Define Injunction. Explain the grounds and principles for grant of Temporary Injunction. [MPCJ 2015]

Ans. Section 37 of the specific relief act states that temporary injunction is to continue until a specified time or until the further order of the court and it may be granted at any stage of a suit. It mandates either to do or to refrain from doing any particular act with an aim to maintain status quo.

Grounds : order 39 – rule 1 and 2 read with section 94(c) of the CPC lays down following grounds to which an applicant may prove either by affidavit or otherwise to seek injunction-

  • That any property in suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of decree.
  • That defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury the plaintiffs in relation to property in dispute.
  • That there is apprehension of breach of contract
  • It is equally relevant to state that the aforesaid grounds are not exhaustive to grant interim injunction as held by hon’ble apex court in Judgment Manohar Lal Chopra Vs Seth Hiralal 1962 AIR 527.


Noticeably, an order under order 39 of CPC is interim in nature and it is passed without the adjudication of suit on merits. Hence, the court as a matter of safeguard has evolved certain principle to guide the discretion. The Hon’ble apex court in a long catena of judgment including in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 SC 276, M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors : 1995 AIR 2372 and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs Hindustan Lever Ltd AIR 1999 SC 3105 has laid down following principles

  1. That the applicant has to show prima facie case. That is, there is a serious question to be tried.
  2. That there is real and present danger of irreparable injury .That is, a species of injury which is not amenable to adequate compensation because there exist no certain pecuniary standard for measuring the damages.
  3. Balance of convenience lies in favour of applicant. In substance, this involves testing of inconvenience on the comparative scale. It is to seen whether comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it.