Image source: https://bit.ly/3gYIbNb

This article has been written by Prithviraj Dey, pursuing Certificate Course in Advanced Civil Litigation: Practice Procedure and Drafting from LawSikho.

Introduction

The origins of the law of injunctions can be traced to Equity Jurisprudence which was formulated in the Roman legal system.  It was incorporated into the English legal system and thereafter it subsequently became a part of our legal system. The law of injunctions follows the dictum of ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy).  The Specific Relief Act, 1963 espouses various kinds of reliefs and injunctions are one of them. Injunctions form a class of ‘preventive reliefs’ which are granted by the courts in circumstances where pecuniary compensation is either not commensurate to the wrongful act that has already been caused or is likely to be caused, or is altogether futile. Injunctive reliefs in general are remedies of an equitable nature and thus act in personam and not in rem. An order of injunction may be issued by the court for and against individuals, public bodies or even the State. 

What are the basic characteristic features of an injunction

An injunction has three characteristic features: 

(i) it is a judicial process; 

(ii) the object obtained thereby is restraint or prevention and in some cases doing of certain acts; and 

(iii) the thing restrained or prevented is a wrongful act. 

What are the various kinds of injunctions?

Temporary and perpetual injunctions

  • 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with temporary and perpetual injunctions.
  • 37(1) states that temporary injuhttps://bit.ly/2HIAZJhnctions continue until a specific period of time, or until the further orders of the court, and they may be granted by the courts at any stage of a suit. Order XXXIX Rules 1-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 govern temporary injunctions.  

Temporary or preliminary or interim or interlocutory injunctions continue till a specific time or until further order of the Court is passed. They may be granted at any stage of a suit. In other words they operate for a specific period when a suit, appeal or any other proceeding, is pending before a court of law. They do not conclude the rights and liabilities of the parties involved finally. It therefore follows that a court can only pass an order for a temporary injunction and not a decree. Temporary or interim injunctions are most frequently sought in infringement cases under §108 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and under §29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Arudra Engineers Private Limited v. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited is one of the latest examples of a case wherein the plaintiff filed an application under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 for an order of injunction in the Madras High Court. The plaintiff claimed that its registered trademark had been infringed by the defendant when the latter released ayurvedic tablets called “Coronil” as an alleged cure for Covid-19. The plaintiff had a registered trademark for a chemical product bearing the same name. The High Court passed an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from the use of the trademark as the case was made out in favour of the plaintiff.

In the USA, the New York State Nurses Association sought relief for a temporary injunction to be granted against the New York State Department of Health, to rescind a directive mandating healthcare personnel to return to work after seven days as this was inconsistent with the existing laws. The injunction also sought to immediately begin to provide adequate COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees. 

As held in Jagjit Singh Khanna v. Rakhal Das Mullick  by the Calcutta High Court, interim or temporary injunction may consist of two stages of interim and ad-interim injunctions. Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order XXXIX do not use the words “interim or ad interim”. These merely indicate the stage at which orders are passed. The only difference between interim and ad-interim injunctions lies in the period for which they operate and the stage at which they are passed. Further, the Bombay High Court has clearly differentiated between the two in Rajendraprasad R. Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay:

ad-interim

Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction. For example, it is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issued to the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, a contingency may arise requiring the plaintiff to apply for an injunction. When such an application is made and when the defendant is present and seeks time to file a reply, the Court may pass an ad interim order of injunction pending reply of the defendant. In some cases, even after the reply is filed by the defendants the Court may grant an ad interim order of injunction if it does not have time to hear the matter and feels that it is necessary to grant injunction pending hearing to protect the plaintiff pending hearing of the application. Thus, ad interim order of injunction may be ex parte or may be passed even in the presence of the defendants.

interim

Interim order usually remains in force for the whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal. If so the order refusing an ad interim injunction is as much appealable as an order refusing an interim injunction.

  • 37(2) states that a perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. The effect is that the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. A perpetual injunction is permanent relief granted after a final adjudication of the parties’ legal rights. Such final relief can further be prohibitive or mandatory in nature. A perpetual injunction merges into a decree, and only when the parties are heard and upon the merits of the suit. The injunctions of this kind are governed by § 38, 40, and 41 Specific Relief Act itself. In most cases apart from seeking a relief for perpetual injunction, an application for a relief of temporary injunction is also filed along with it. 

Prohibitive or mandatory injunctions

In Halsbury’s Laws of England, it is stated: “An injunction is a judicial remedy by which a person is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing. In the former case it is called a restrictive injunction, and in the latter a mandatory injunction.”

An injunction is prohibitory or restrictive in nature when a court forbids the commission of a wrong threatened, or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun. It contemplates a ‘negative’ act.

An order/decree of mandatory injunction is passed on the application of an injunction when a wrongful state of things is created by the defendant. The defendant has to put an end, or in other words has to undo his wrongful act by way of an active restitution of the former state of things. He is required to do a ‘positive’ act for this purpose.  It is a legal obligation that needs to be fulfilled by the defendant. It can thus be said that it becomes mandatory or imperative for the defendant to act in accordance with the order of the court to rectify the wrong committed by him. A mandatory junction can further be perpetual or temporary in nature. A mandatory injunction in private law is a counterpart of mandamus in public law. Once the obligation to perform the public duty is established the performance of the duty is only a ministerial act and in such a case mandamus is available as of right and the court has no discretion to refuse it. 

In a catena of cases it has been held that a mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore status quo and not to establish a new set of things. The court may in its discretion grant a mandatory injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. Mandatory injunctions can thus be granted to undo contractual breach as well tortious wrongs. These acts may comprise of pulling down of a building, destruction of copies produced by piracy of copyright and of trademarks, removal of trees on the defendant’s land or the removal of overhanging branches, providing maintenance to the widow of the testator, to restore the building in its original condition, etc. 

  • 39 of the Specific Relief Act defines mandatory injunctions

Mandatory injunctions are granted to prevent the breach of an obligation and in so doing, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing. The court may in its discretion grant a mandatory injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. 

Essential ingredients of §39-

Ingredients: 

(i) to prevent the breach of an obligation; 

(ii) if necessary to compel the performance of certain acts; and 

(iii) that act which the court is capable of enforcing. 

  • 39 of the present Act corresponds with §55 of the repealed Specific Relief Act, 1877. §39 reproduces the erstwhile §55 with the only difference that illustrations have been omitted. Some of the illustrations from §55 of the repealed Act where a mandatory injunction can be obtained:—

(a). A builds a house with eaves projecting over B’s lands. B may sue for an injunction to pull down so much of the eaves as so project.

(b). A is B’s medical advisor. He demands money of which he declines to pay. A then threatens to make known the effect of B’s communications to him as a patient. B may sue for an injunction to restrain him from so doing. The court may also order A’s letters to be destroyed.

(c). A threatens to publish statements concerning B which would be punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code. The Court may grant an injunction to restrain the publication, even though it may be shown not to be injurious to B’s property.

What are the principles that guide the court while granting temporary mandatory injunctions?

Judicial discretion 

While granting reliefs for mandatory injunctions the courts usually have to exercise caution and a highest degree of satisfaction is required to grant interlocutory mandatory injunctions. A party is not entitled to such a relief as a matter of right or course.  It is an equitable relief and the courts have to employ discretion in such matters. The courts have to make a preliminary assessment of the facts so as to reach a cogent decision. There are two possible scenarios that may arise once the interlocutory injunctive relief is granted:

  1. a) wherein the rights of the plaintiff being asserted currently in the action brought by him, may later be effectively enforced by the court in the event that the action ultimately succeeds. In such a scenario, irreparable harm will be caused to the plaintiff if the relief of interlocutory injunction is not granted in his favour as the thing complained of will be allowed to perpetuate until the final decision is given;
  2. b) wherein the plaintiff fails to establish or would fail to establish the rights asserted by him during the course of the trial. In this case irreparable harm would be caused to the defendant since the interlocutory injunctive relief is granted against him.

On the test to be applied in granting mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications in Halsbury’s Laws of England it is stated:

A mandatory injunction can be granted on an interlocutory application as well as at the hearing, but, in the absence of special circumstances, it will not normally be granted.” 

The triple test

The most relied on and unequivocal authority on temporary or interlocutory mandatory injunctions is a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors. in which the Hon’ble court has laid down guidelines to be followed while granting interlocutory injunctions.

 “16. Generally stated these guidelines are:

(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.”

Applying this triple test is a prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions and other factors such as the suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff, the conduct and whether monetary compensation is adequate, need to be taken into cognizance while granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors has held additionally that public interest is one of the material and relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction.

Where the plaintiff has suppressed of material facts in his application

In Vellakutty vs. Karthyayani and Ors.  the Kerala High Court held that when any party suppresses material facts from the Court in his or her knowledge does not deserve the grant of temporary injunction. The Court cannot grant a temporary relief which would lead to oppression against the other party during the pendency of the suit. 

Where the conduct of the plaintiff itself is in question

Insofar as conduct is concerned, the plaintiff must come with clean hands. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Coca Cola Company and Ors. held

“50. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure..the Court, on being approached, will…. look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest.”

Moreover, if the plaintiff delays in seeking the relief of injunction, the court may refuse to grant the relief of mandatory injunction.

Where monetary compensation is adequate to undo the wrong caused

The Allahabad High Court in V.D. Tripathi and Ors. vs. Vijai Shanker Dwivedi and Ors. has held as per the facts of the case that where there is a possibility for the plaintiff to obtain compensation in damages, temporary injunctive relief would not be granted. 

Can the court pass an order for interim ex parte injunction? 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund and Ors. vs. Kartick Das and Ors. has laid down the following guidelines to be adhered to while granting an interim ex parte injunction.

“19. As a principle, ex-parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the Court in the grant of ex-parte injunction are:

(a) where 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 so 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 some time 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.

(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.”

In Shiv Kumar Chadha and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., the Hon’ble Court has further held that under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while granting an ex parte injunction the court has to mandatorily direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party, unless it appears to the court that the very object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso added to the said rule says that where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court must record the reasons for its doing so.

The reasoning employed by the Hon’ble court was that it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant and such ex parte orders have far reaching effects.

Inherent power of the court under § 151 of Code of Civil Procedure

As held in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal,  the Courts have inherent jurisdiction under § 151 of the CPC to issue temporary mandatory injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. 

Consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction

Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as civil contempt.

  • 94(c) and Rule- 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure set out the consequences in the event of breach or disobedience of the order of a temporary injunction passed by the court. In case of disobedience of the grant of injunctive relief or breach of the terms of the order of injunction, the person so guilty would be sent to the civil prison and additionally an order that his property be attached and sold would also be passed by the very court which granted the injunction.

What are the principles that guide the court while granting a perpetual mandatory injunction?

The principles of granting perpetual injunctions are laid down by Chapter VII of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 itself. § 38(1) of the Specific Relief Act contemplates a circumstance where a perpetual injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff when a breach of on obligation arises. As per §38(2) such a case might be to prevent the breach of contractual obligations existing in his favour. 

Sub-section (3) of §38 of Specific Relief Act in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) further points towards the circumstances wherein the defendant may be granted a perpetual injunction. While granting perpetual injunction, the Courts have to make a perusal of some of the key aspects, viz. the effect of invasion on the right contested, whether the compensation would not suffice to be an adequate remedy for its redressal, whether there is an availability of a standard in order to ascertain the actual damage caused by such invasion and whether the grant of injunctive relief is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

  • 40 allows the courts to grant damages in lieu of or in addition to injunction.
  • 41 provides circumstances when the injunction should be refused. The Specific Relief Act, 1963, looks at various contingencies in sub-sections (a) to (j) of §41in which the perpetual injunctive relief cannot be granted. §41 of the Act enumerates the situations when a perpetual injunction cannot be granted. An injunction cannot be granted: 

(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding 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 disentitle him to the assistant to the Court, 

(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. 

It must, however, be remembered that the jurisdiction to grant injunction is discretionary, and therefore, the court may even refuse to grant a perpetual injunction even if the case is one not covered by §41.

As per Order XXI, Rule 32(1) in order to enforce 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 Rule 32(5) shows that the court may also direct the judgment-debtor to perform the act required to be done through some other person appointed by the court at the cost of the judgment-debtor. This rule covers all acts to be done in cases of prohibitive as well as mandatory injunctions.

Important element of a draft of a suit for mandatory injunction

An Index containing the list of all material documents in support of the suit for injunction.

Memo of Parties. 

List of Events and Dates in chronological order with the date on when the cause of action arose.

Point wise submissions of the plaintiff

Jurisdiction: The valuation and the court fees has to be paid for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Wockhardt Ltd. becomes pertinent to note here and it held that in a suit for an injunction, ad valorem court fees has paid and the same has to be valued in terms of §8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 in tandem with the §7 clause (iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. §8 of the Suits Valuation Act makes it clear that in a suit filed for injunctive relief under §7 clause (iv) of the Court Fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of the court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. The court also will look into the fact whether the plaintiff has valued the present suit for injunction rationally or if the valuation made by the plaintiff is arbitrary and whimsical. In the event that the court does eventually find out from any material on the record or from an objective standard that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit for purposes of court fees, such valuation would be rejected. The court is empowered at any stage of the case to reject the valuation and the plaint altogether under Order VII, Rule 11(b).  

In order to establish the territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff has to also clearly specify that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the very court in which the suit for injunction is being instituted.

Computation of the period of limitation

The limitation period for a mandatory injunction is not prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. However, Article 113 of the Limitation Act lays down that any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule of the Act, the limitation period would be three years and the same would begin when the right to sue accrues.

Prayer

Affidavit

Verification

Application for temporary injunction as proper party along with the affidavit

Vakalatnama by the applicant’s advocate.

 

Sample draft for a suit of mandatory injunction

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA  COURT, NEW DELHI

CIVIL SUIT No.              of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

  1. ABC                                     PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

  1. XYZ                                                 DEFENDANT

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE

EVENT

01.03.2020

The Defendant started raising construction and encroached upon the land of the Plaintiff .

01.09.2020

The Defendant constructed a floor beyond the prescribed legal limit of three floors.

 

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA  COURT, NEW DELHI

CIVIL SUIT No.              of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

  1. ABC                                     PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

  1. XYZ                                                 DEFENDANT

CIVIL SUIT SEEKING A PERMANENT PROHIBITORY AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT UNDER §37 AND §39 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT,1963  

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES

That the Plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plot B-67, Block A, Pocket 5, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110099.

That the Defendant is the owner in possession of B-68, Block A, Pocket 5, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110099.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES

That the Plaintiff and the Defendant have been neighbours since 1967 as they live in the same residential area which is Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

That the Plaintiff and the Defendant share an otherwise friendly and cordial relationship with one another.

BRIEF FACTS THAT LED TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT SUIT

That the Defendant during the month of September,2020 has started raising further construction on the top floor of his premises without adhering to the rule prescribed by the law and has further encroached upon the land of the Plaintiff. This has caused obstruction of light, air and sun to the building of the Plaintiff besides causing nuisance to the Plaintiff and his tenants, thereby depriving the plaintiff of his easementary rights of light, air and sun.  

That the cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff on 01.09.2020 when the Defendant completed the illegal construction beyond the third floor of his premises.

That Defendant’s residence is situated at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi within the jurisdiction limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Furthermore, as demonstrated above the cause of action in the suit brought forth has repeatedly arisen in New Delhi.

 That for the purpose of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Court fees, the present suit is valued as follows:

Value of Suit

Amount of Court fees paid

Value for Jurisdiction (in Rs.) 200/-

Value for court fee(in Rs.) 

 

 

That the present Civil Suit is being filed in a bona fide manner and is in the interest of the law.

That the present Civil Suit is non-commercial in nature and is in fact non-commercial in nature.

That the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the Plaintiff and not the Defendant.

That the Plaintiff has a good prima facie case and has a chance of succeeding in the case.

That the Plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss of money if the reliefs in the present Civil Suit are not allowed.

That the Plaintiff has not filed a similar civil suit before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court.

That the present Civil Suit is maintainable in the eyes of the law.

That the annexures annexed in the suit are true copies of the respective originals.

That the present suit is filed within the period of the limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963. 

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a). pass a decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction restraining the Defendant from raising any further construction over the suit land against the Municipal Corporation Act and Bye-Laws; 

b). direct the Defendant to remove illegal and unauthorised construction over the suit land owned and possessed by the Plaintiff; 

c). direct the demolition of the construction already raised;

d). award the costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the  Defendant; and

Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL, AND IS DUTY BOUND, FOREVER PRAY.

PLAINTIFF

              THROUGH                   

                                                                                                       Mr. DEF

ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF

 

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATED:     21.05.2020

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI       

CIVIL SUIT No.              of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

  1. ABC                                   …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

  1. XYZ                                                 …DEFENDANT

I, DEF, s/o of JKH, aged 22 years, r/o D-789, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi- 110089, solemnly affirm and confirm:

  1. That I am authorized by the Plaintiff to file the accompanying Civil Suit on behalf of the Plaintiff. I am deposing this affidavit based on the information received from the Plaintiff. 
  2. That the above accompanying Civil Suit has been drafted under my instructions and I have read and understood the contents thereof and affirm the facts as true, correct, consistent with the information I have received from the Plaintiff.
  3. That the annexures annexed are true copies of the respective originals.
  4. That I declare that the contents of this affidavit of mine are correct and true and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
  5. That I hereby verify that the contents of the paragraph nos. 1 to 7 of the Civil Suit are based on the information received by me from the Plaintiff, the paragraphs nos. 8 to 17 are legal submissions and the paragraph after no.18 is the Prayer.

 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI         

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION

CIVIL SUIT No.              of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

  1. ABC                                   …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

  1. XYZ                                                 …DEFENDANT

Application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Temporary Prohibitory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction

The Plaintiff named above submits this application, praying to state as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff has filed a case before this Hon’ble Court hearing whereof will take some time.

2. That it is apparent from perusal of grounds and documents attached therewith that the applicant has prima facie a good case in his favour and the case is likely to succeed. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. The grounds of the case as stated earlier may be read as part of this application to save the repetition.

3. That the interest of justice demands that the respondent is restrained from carrying out further illegal construction. In case the respondents are not restrained that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money and filing of this case will become infructuous.

4.  That the plaintiff is sanguine about the success of this suit in his favour.

  1. That the plaintiff, therefore, prays that an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff’s right to enjoyment of property, be kindly issued against the defendants. 
  2. That an affidavit in support thereof is filed herewith.

    New Delhi                                     Applicant

    Mr. DEF Advocate

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI   

CIVIL SUIT No.              of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Application No: of 2020

  1. ABC                             ..APPLICANT

VERSUS

  1. XYZ                                                 …RESPONDENT

Affidavit in support of application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application has been prepared under my instruction.

2. That the contents of paras 1 to __ are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of this affidavit of mine are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therewith.

DEPONENT

Conclusion

The frequency of suits being instituted in a court for granting of an injunction is very high and it can be done for great many reasons. As already discussed, application for a temporary injunction is submitted ancillary to a suit for permanent injunction. The jurisprudence that has evolved over the years is that a grant of a temporary injunction (prohibitory or mandatory) requires the highest degree of caution and satisfaction to be exercised by the courts. The party which brings such a suit must also be aware of the consequences if the relief is granted to him on frivolous and vexatious grounds. If the courts do find out that the relief is obtained by the plaintiff on insufficient grounds, or it appears to the court that the application/suit was made on no reasonable or probable grounds, then compensation not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- (§95 of the Code of Civil Procedure) would have to be paid to the defendant for injury or costs. 


LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here