CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

INJUNCTION

BY
KANIKA AHUJA

1
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

INJUNCTION

Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 1

Object and Kinds of Injunctions………………………………………………. 2

Temporary Injunction…………………………………………………………. 3 – 10

Perpetual Injunction……………………………………………………………11 – 12

Refusal of Injunction………………………………………………………….. 13

Mandatory Injunction…………………………………………………………. 14

Appeal and Remedies…………………………………………………………. 15

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….. 16

2
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

INJUNCTION

An Injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain 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 a continuing to do a particular act (Prohibitory
injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act(Mandatory injunction).

An injunction is defined in Halsbury's Laws as: “A judicial process whereby a party is

ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing.” Oxford dictionary meaning of
word Injunction is “a judicial warning or a judicial order restraining a person from an action
or compelling a person to carry out a certain act.”

INTRODUCTION

The law of injunction in our country is having its origin in the Equity Jurisprudence inherited
from England who borrowed it from Roman Law. It is basic principle of our law that if there
is a right there should be a remedy. An injunction is a Judicial Remedy prohibiting persons
from doing a specified act called a restrictive injunction or commanding them to undo some
wrong or injury called a mandatory injunction and may be either temporary, interim or
interlocutory or permanent. Relief of injunction cannot be claimed as of right. It is
discretionary, equitable relief. The relief of injunction must be granted where it is absolutely
necessary. It may be granted where it would help in preservation of peace and public order.
Where there is possibility of breach of peace of public order, the Court ought to proceed with
caution. An injunction is a remedy against an individual and should be issued only in respect
of acts done by him against whom it is sought to be enforced. Like other equitable remedies,
it has traditionally been given when a wrong cannot be effectively remedied by an award of
money damages. Injunctions are intended to make whole again someone whose rights have
been violated. Nevertheless, while deciding whether to grant an injunction, courts also take
into account the interests of non-parties (that is, the public interest). When deciding whether
to give an injunction, and deciding what its scope should be, courts give special attention to
questions of fairness and good faith. One manifestation of this is that injunctions are subject
to equitable defenses, such as laches and unclean hands.

3
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

OBJECT

The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in dispute till
legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated. The court in
the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant interim relief. The
underlying object of granting temporary injunction is to preserve status quo at the time of
institution of the proceedings and to prevent any changes in it until the final determination of
the suit. It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favor of a party to prevent future
possible injury.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian courts regulate the granting of a temporary injunction in accordance with the
procedure laid down under Sections 94, 95 and Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code,
whereas, temporary and perpetual injunctions are prescribed by Sections 36 to 42 of the
Specific Relief Act.

KINDS OF INJUNCTIONS

Injunctions are mainly of two kinds i.e. temporary and perpetual injunction. A party against
whom a perpetual injunction is granted is thereby restrained forever from doing the act
complained of. A Perpetual injunction can only be granted by a final decree made at the
hearing and upon the merits of the suit. On the other hand a temporary or interim injunction
may be granted on an interlocutory application at any stage of a suit. The injunction is called
temporary as it is until the suit is disposed of or until the further order of the Court.

Injunctions are (I) preventive, prohibitive or restrictive, that is when they prevent , prohibit or
restrain someone from doing something; or (II) mandatory, that is , when they compel,
command or order person to do something. Again, an injunction is granted without finally
deciding an application for injunction and operates till the disposal of the application.

WHO MAY APPLY:

A plaintiff or a defendant may make an application for grant of an injunction.

4
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
AGAINST WHOM INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED: An injunction may be issued only
against a party and not against a stranger or a third party. It also cannot be issued against a
judicial officer.

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

SCOPE:

It provides that when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause
injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in suit, the Court may grant a
temporary injunction to restrain such an act or make other order for the purpose of preventing
the dispossession of the plaintiff or for the purpose of preventing the causing of injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute.

If the defendants are creating third party interest/rights as he is trying to dispose of part of the
property, the plaintiff can claim the injunction.

Temporary injunction is a provisional remedy that is invoked to preserve the subject matter in
its existing condition. Its purpose is to prevent dissolution of the plaintiff's rights. The main
reason for use of a temporary injunction is the need for immediate relief. Section 94 (c) and
(e) of Code of Civil Procedure contain provisions under which the Court may in order to
prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, grant a temporary injunction or make such
other interlocutory order as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. Section 95 of
Civil Procedure Code further provides that where in any suit a temporary injunction is
granted and it appears to the Court that there were no sufficient grounds, or the suit of the
plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for
instituting the same, the Court may on application of the defendant award reasonable
compensation which may be to the extent of the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court trying the
suit.

PRINCIPLES:

In Agricultural Produce Market Committee Case, the Apex Court has held that "a temporary
injunction can be granted only if the person seeking injunction has a concluded right, capable
of being enforced by way of injunction."

5
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
The Apex Court through catena of judgments like landmark judgment in Gujarat Bottling
Co. Ltd. Case, held that the Court needs to follow certain guidelines while considering an
application for grant of temporary injunction, some of which are briefly stated hereunder:

 The applicant seeking relief of temporary injunction shall have to establish a prima
facie case in his favor. For this purpose, the Court will not examine the merits of the
case rather only the basic facts on which it is established that the applicant has a prima
facie case to contest. Thereafter the applicant also has to establish that the allegations/
averments made in the application on which the temporary injunction is sought are
plausible.
 The court will also examine the conduct of the applicant and such conduct needs to be
examined even at the stage where the application for setting aside an order under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed.
 The court has to examine the balance of convenience i.e. the balance of comparative
loss caused to the applicant and the respondent in the case of not passing the order.
 The court will first of all will examine what is the extent of loss that would be caused
to the applicant if the order is not passed and also whether it is reparable by monetary
compensation i.e. by payment of cost. Then it will examine the loss suffered by
respondent if the order is passed and thereupon it has to see which loss will be greater
and irreparable. The party who would suffer greater loss would be said to be having
balance of convenience in his favor and accordingly, the court will pass or refuse to
pass the order. The court has the power also to ask the party to deposit security for
compensation or to give an undertaking for the payment of the compensation, if
ordered.
 Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary
injunction is disallowed.

The court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial
discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to
the parties, if the injunction is refused, and compare it with that which is likely to be caused
to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or
probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the court considers that, pending the suit, the

6
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the
court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad
interim injunction pending the suit.

At the stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction, the Court is not required to
go into the merits of the case in detail. Generally, before granting the injunction, the court
must be satisfied about the following aspects:

 One who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

 One who seeks equity must do equity.
 Whenever there is right there is remedy.

The power to grant a temporary injunction is at the discretion of the court. This discretion,
however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles.
Injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side. The grant of
injunction is in the nature of equitable relief, and the court has undoubtedly power to impose
such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such conditions, however, must be 6 reasonable so
as not to make it impossible for the party to comply with the same and thereby virtually
denying the relief which he would otherwise be ordinarily entitled to.

(A) PRIMA FACIE CASE:

It is well settled that in granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction, the Court has very
wide discretion. The exercise of the discretion should be in a judicial manner, depending
upon the circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the guidance
of the Court to that effect. It is well settled that while granting injunction plaintiff must show:
(i) existence of prima facie case,

(ii) balance of convenience and

(iii) the injury must be of an irreparable loss that cannot be compensated in terms of money.

The first rule is that the applicant must make out a prima facie case in support of the right
claimed by him. The court must be satisfied that there is a bonafide dispute raised by the
applicant, that there is a strong case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on
merits and on the facts before the court there is a probability of the applicant being entitled to
the relief claimed by him. The existence of a prima facie right and infraction of such right is a

7
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
condition precedent for grant of temporary injunction. The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy
the court by leading evidence or otherwise that he has a prima facie case in his favor.

Prima facie case, however, should not be confused with a case proved to the hilt. It is no part
of the court's function at that stage to try to resolve a conflict of evidence nor to decide
complicated questions of fact and of law which call for detailed arguments and mature
considerations. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial. In other word, the court should
not examine the merits of the case closely at that stage because it is not expected to decide the
suit finally. In deciding a prima facie case, the court is to be guided by the plaintiff's case as
revealed in the plaint, affidavits or other materials produced by him.

The plaintiff should come before the Court with clean hands. If he suppresses material facts,
documents then he is not entitled for the relief of injunction and further points of balance of
convenience, irreparable injury even not required to be considered in such case.

(B) IRREPARABLE INJURY:

The existence of the prima facie case alone does not entitle the applicant for a temporary
injunction. The applicant must further satisfy the court about the second condition by
showing that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed is not granted, and
that there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect himself from the
consequences of apprehended injury. In other words, the court must be satisfied that refusal
to grant injunction would result in 'irreparable injury' to the party seeking relief and he needs
to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury. Granting of injunction is an
equitable relief and such a power can be exercised when judicial intervention is absolutely
necessary to protect rights and interests of the applicant. The expression irreparable injury
however does not mean that there should be no possibility of repairing the injury. It only
means that the injury must be a material one, i.e., which cannot be adequately compensated
by damages. An injury will be regarded as irreparable where there exists no certain pecuniary
standard for measuring damages.

(C) BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:

The third condition for granting interim injunction is that the balance of convenience must be
in favor of the applicant. In other words, the court must be satisfied that the 9 comparative
mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing

8
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by
granting it.

(D) OTHER FACTORS:

There are some other factors which must be considered by court while granting injunction.
The relief of injunction may be refused on the ground of delay, laches or acquiescence or
whether the applicant has not come with the clean hands or has suppressed material facts, or
where monetary compensation is adequate relief. As per amended Sec.9-A (2) of the C.P.C.
The Court is empowered to grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending
determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction.

INHERENT POWER:

There was a conflict of Judicial opinion on the question whether the Court could issue a
temporary injunction U/s.151 of Civil Procedure Code when the case did not fall within the
term of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code. However now that point is
concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manmohanlal Vrs. Seth Hiralal reported
in A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 527 by observing that the Court has powers U/s.151 of Civil
Procedure Code to issue an injunction in cases not falling within Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2;
however that discretion should be exercised judiciously.

For the purpose of implementation of an injunction order Police protection can be ordered
U/s.151 of Civil Procedure Code. However the Court shall not order for Police protection on
the basis of an ad-interim ex-parte order and only final order under Order XXXIX Rule 1,2
can be enforced with police assistance. An order granting Police aid without giving a chance
to the defendant to submit his objections is not proper.

AD INTERIM INJUNCTION

Whenever the Court does grant an injunction without notice to the opposite party i.e. ex-parte
the proviso to Rule 3, Order 39, C.P.C. provides duty on the Court to record the reasons for
its opinion as to the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. It also puts
an obligation on the party in whose favour such order is passed to communicate the order
along with all relevant documents to the other side by registered post and to file an affidavit
stating that, he complied the requirement.

9
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and ors., Civil
Appeal No.49/2011 has held that: “the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in
granting ex parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be
issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concern parties appropriate
order should be passed.”

The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
(1993) 3 SCC 161 emphasized the need to give reason before passing ex-parte orders of
injunction by observing; “... the court shall 'record the reasons' why an ex-parte order of
injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this
background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex-parte injunction, cannot
be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party
to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise
either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following
the requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The
party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of restrain against a
party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the court about the
gravity of the situation and court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex-parte order.”

In the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 Apex Court
held that, ex-parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The
factors which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex-parte injunctions are –

(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;

(b) whether the refusal of ex-parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of
it would involve;

(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act
complained as that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;

(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such
circumstances it will not grant ex-parte injunction;

(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex-parte injunction to show utmost good faith
in making the application;

10
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
(f) even if granted, the ex-parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;

(g) General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss
would also be considered by the court.

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION:

Section 37(2) of Specific Relief Act says that a perpetual injunction can only be granted by
the decree made at the hearing and upon merits of the suit. The defendant is thereby
perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right from the commission of an act, which
would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act further
provides a circumstance where a perpetual injunction may be granted in favor of the plaintiff
to prevent the breach of obligation existing in his favor. In contractual matters when such
obligation arises, the Court has to seek guidance by the rules and provisions contained in
Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act dealing with the specific performance of contracts.

Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) further
illustrates the circumstances wherein perpetual injunction may be granted by the Court. That
means in view of the section 38 (3) when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the
plaintiff's right, or enjoyment of property the Court may grant a perpetual injunction. As per
Sec.38 of Specific Relief Act – the plaintiff must establish apprehended breach of an
obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication.

A perpetual injunction can be granted only after the hearing of suit on merits. The party
seeking perpetual injunction has to establish such right in his favor which requires protection
in perpetuity. A party who seeks perpetual injunction has to establish his right by adducing
substantial evidence.

The Supreme Court in case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors
on 25 March, 2008 held in para 17 of judgment as under:

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for
declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where
the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue
for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with
plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction
simpliciter.

11
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue
of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be
decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession
has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the
issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary
pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are
absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or
examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there
are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and
law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive
suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title
on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court
may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the
exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the
costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some
meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The
court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and
cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending
upon the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court in case of Vareed Jacob vs Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors on 21 April,
2004 held that : I am, therefore, of the opinion that the interim order of injunction did not
revive on restoration of the suit. The Courts, however, would be well advised keeping in view
the controversy to specifically pass an order when the suit is dismissed for default stating
when interlocutory orders are vacated and on restoration of the suit, if the court intends to
revive such interlocutory orders, an express order to that effect should be passed.

12
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

REFUSAL OF INJUNCTION

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides various contingencies in sub section (a)
to (j) in which the injunction cannot be granted.

(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceedings unless such a restrain is
necessary to prevent a multiplicity of the proceedings,

(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not
subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought,

(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body,

(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in criminal matter,

(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced,

(f) to prevent on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will
be a nuisance,

(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced,

(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other mutual mode of
proceedings except in case of breach of trust,

(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agent has been such as to dis entitle him to the
assistant to the Court,

(j) when the plaintiff has not personal interest in the matter.

Under normal parlance, while granting perpetual injunction, the Court has to see the nature of
right being invaded, whether the compensation would be an inadequate remedy for its
redressal, there is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by such invasion,
there shall not have efficacious remedy to the plaintiff in respect of such invasion, the
plaintiff would not have been guilty of delay and latches and his conduct is not unfair. Aspect
of comparative hardship also assumes importance.

13
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015

MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore status-quo of

the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing,
when full relief could be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts which have been
illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the complaining
party. Before issuing temporary mandatory injunction the Court must be satisfied that the
effect of injunction would be to preserve status-quo and to prevent irreparable injury.

A temporary mandatory injunction can be issued only in case of extreme hardship and
compelling circumstances and mostly in those cases when status-quo existing on the date of
institution of suit is be restored. The jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction is
discretionary jurisdiction which can be exercised only in a case which falls strictly within
four corners of provisions enumerated under section 37 to 41 of Specific Relief Act. 34.

Mandatory injunctions are contemplated under section 13 39 of the Specific Relief Act,
where it is necessary to prevent the breach of an obligation and the erring party may be
compelled to perform certain acts. Section 40 provides for granting damages in lieu of or in
addition to injunction. While section 41 provides circumstances when the injunction should
be refused. Section 42 provides for grant of injunction to perform a negative agreement. The
law of injunctions is vast and expansive and it is based on the principles of equity. The Court
should act according to the justice, equality and conscience, when there is no specific rules
applicable to the circumstances of the case. Section 39 says to prevent a breach of obligation,
it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of
enforcing. The Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach
complained of and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.

ENFORCEMENT OF A DECREE FOR INJUNCTION

The wording as framed in Order 21, Rule 32(1) would indicate that in enforcement of the
decree for injunction a judgment-debtor can either be put in civil prison or his property can be
attached or both the said courses can be resorted to. But Sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 shows that
the Court need to resort to either of the above two courses and instead the Court can direct the
judgment-debtor to perform the act required in the decree or the Court can get the said act
done through some other person appointed by the Court at the cost of the judgment-debtor.

14
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
Thus, in execution of a decree the Court can resort to a three-fold operation against
disobedience of the judgment-debtor in order to compel him to perform the act. But, once the
decree is enforced the judgment-debtor is free from the tentacles of Rule 32. A reading of that
rule shows that the whole operation is for enforcement of the decree. If the injunction or
direction was subsequently set aside or if it is satisfied the utility of Rule 32 gets dissolved.
The DH entitle to execute the decree for injunction and partition, without impediment if not
executed the decree within 12 years as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act then DH has to
face the consequences thereof at least to the extent of executability of decree for partition. As
per the provisions of Article 135 of the said Act, decree granting mandatory injunction, shall
have to be executed within three years from the date of decree or where a date is fixed for
performance, from such date. However, here it is clear that proviso attached to Article 136 is
self explanatory to the effect that for the enforcement of execution of a decree granting
perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. M. A. Raja S. Vs.
Vedhantham Pillai reported in 2000(2) C.T.C. page 199 (Madras High Court)

APPEAL

In Ramji Gupta Vs. Gopi Krishan reported in AIR 2013 SC 3099, it was held: “Under the
Code of Civil Procedure, certain specific orders mentioned in Section 104 and Order 43 Rule
1 of C.P.C. are only appealable and no appeal shall lie from any other orders. Therefore, the
order made under Section 151 of C.P.C. being not included in the category of appealable
orders, no appeal is maintainable against such orders”.

REMEDIES AND EFFECTS FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION

Remedies and effect for disobedience of temporary injunction is laid down in the provisions
of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub Rule (2) provides that if the
disobedience or breach continues beyond one year from the date of attachment, the Court is
empowered to sell the property under the attachment and compensate the affected party from
such sale proceeds. In other words, attachment will continue only till the breach continues or
the disobedience persists subject to a limit of one year period. If the disobedience ceases to
continue in the meanwhile the attachment also would cease. The remedy for the
enforcement/disobedience of either perpetual or mandatory injunction is lying under Order 21

15
 CPC - INJUNCTION 2015
Rule 32 of C.P.C. Remedies and effect for disobedience of a temporary injunction is laid
down in the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule2A of the Civil Procedure Code.

CONCLUSION

An injunction is an equitable remedy and as such attracts the application of the maxim that he
who seeks equity must do equity. Granting of injunction is entirely in the discretion of the
Court, though the discretion is to be sound and reasonably guided by Judicial Principles. This
discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal
principles. Injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side. The
grant of injunction is in the nature of equitable relief, and the court has undoubtedly power to
impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such conditions, however, must be
reasonable so as not to make it impossible for the party to comply with the same and thereby
virtually denying the relief which party would otherwise be ordinarily entitled to. The general
rule is that grant of an injunction is a matter of discretion of the court and it cannot be
claimed as of right. However, the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner and in
accordance with the provisions relating to the grant of injunction contained in the specific
Relief Act. It is well settled that no interim injunction would be issued if final relief cannot be
granted. When plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter, injunction cannot be granted.

16