A civil court grants a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the applicant shows a prima facie case, irreparable injury if relief is refused, and a balance of convenience in his favour. The Supreme Court restated this three-part test in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719, and it remains the starting point in every injunction hearing. The relief is discretionary, so delay, suppression of facts or the applicant's own conduct can defeat even a strong case.
Where does the power to grant a temporary injunction come from?
The power rests on three provisions that work together. Section 94(c) CPC lets the court grant a temporary injunction to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, Order XXXIX supplies the procedure, and section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says temporary injunctions continue until a specified time or further order and are regulated by the CPC.
Order XXXIX Rule 1 covers three situations, each of which must be proved by affidavit or otherwise:
- property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by a party, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree;
- the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors;
- the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the property in dispute.
Rule 2 is wider in subject and narrower in purpose. It applies in a suit to restrain a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, and lets the plaintiff seek an order against repetition or continuance of the breach, before or after judgment, on terms as to duration, accounts or security.
What is the three-part test from Dalpat Kumar?
The test asks three separate questions, and the applicant must succeed on all of them.
| Element | The question the court asks | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case | Is there a bona fide dispute raising a substantial question that needs investigation at trial? | It is not proof of title, and the court does not decide the suit |
| Irreparable injury | Will refusal cause material injury that damages cannot adequately compensate? | It does not mean the injury is physically impossible to repair |
| Balance of convenience | Which side suffers greater mischief if the order is granted or refused? | It is not a simple count of hardships; the court weighs comparative injury |
In Dalpat Kumar the Court said that a prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title. The question is whether the applicant has raised a serious triable issue. On irreparable injury, the Court explained that the injury must be material, one that cannot be adequately compensated in money. On balance of convenience, the court compares the substantial mischief likely to be caused to each party by granting or withholding the order.
The test traces back to the English decision in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975), but Indian courts apply it with an added emphasis on equitable conduct. An applicant who has slept over his rights for months, or who suppressed a material fact, can be refused relief even if all three elements are otherwise present.
How does the test work on real facts?
The three elements are easiest to understand on a concrete dispute.
Suppose a co-owner of an ancestral house files a partition suit and learns that his brother, who lives in the house, has signed an agreement to sell it to a builder. He applies under Rule 1 to restrain alienation.
- Prima facie case. He produces the family settlement and revenue records showing joint ownership. Whether he will finally get a share is for trial, but a serious question is plainly raised.
- Irreparable injury. A sale to a builder followed by demolition would destroy the subject of the suit. Money cannot replace a share in a specific family house.
- Balance of convenience. Restraining the sale costs the brother only delay, since he continues to live there. Refusing the order may leave the plaintiff chasing a demolished building.
An injunction would ordinarily follow. Now change one fact: the plaintiff knew of the agreement for a year and did nothing until construction had begun. The same three elements might still be argued, but delay and acquiescence now weigh heavily against him.
Does lis pendens make an injunction against sale unnecessary?
No. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 binds a transferee during the pendency of a suit to the result of the suit, and some courts used to refuse injunctions against alienation on that basis. In Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024) the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. Order XXXIX Rule 1 expressly provides for injunctions against alienation, and the Court said that if lis pendens were a complete answer, the rule would have been unnecessary.
A purchaser who buys in breach of an injunction stands even worse. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. (2013) the Court treated a transferee pendente lite with notice as bound by the outcome of the specific performance suit.
When can a court grant an injunction without notice?
Order XXXIX Rule 3 requires notice to the opposite party in all cases, except where the object of the injunction would be defeated by the delay. The exception comes with conditions that are often tested.
- The court must record its reasons for thinking that delay would defeat the object.
- The applicant must deliver to the opposite party, or send by speed post with registration, immediately after the order, copies of the application, the supporting affidavit, the plaint and the documents relied on. The words "speed post with registration" replaced "registered post" with effect from 20 December 2025.
- The applicant must file an affidavit of compliance on the day the injunction is granted or the next day.
- Under Rule 3A, the court must endeavour to dispose of the application within thirty days of the ex parte order, and must record reasons if it cannot.
In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) the Supreme Court listed the matters a court should weigh before granting an ex parte injunction, including whether irreparable or serious mischief will follow, whether refusal would involve greater injustice than grant, when the applicant first noticed the act complained of, whether he acquiesced, and whether he came with good faith. It added that an ex parte order should generally be for a limited period.
Rule 4 lets a dissatisfied party apply to discharge, vary or set aside the injunction. Where an ex parte injunction was obtained on a knowingly false or misleading statement on a material particular, the court shall vacate it unless it records reasons why that is not necessary in the interests of justice.
Can a temporary injunction be mandatory?
Yes, but courts are slower to grant it. A prohibitory injunction preserves the position; a mandatory one compels a party to act, often reversing what he has done.
In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) the Supreme Court set a higher threshold for interim mandatory injunctions. The applicant must show a strong case for trial, higher than the prima facie standard; the order must be necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury; and the balance of convenience must favour him. Such orders are generally granted to restore the status quo that existed before the defendant's act, for instance where a party has broken a lock and taken possession just before the suit.
When will an injunction be refused?
An injunction is refused when any element of the test fails, and also in situations the Specific Relief Act excludes. Section 41 lists cases in which an injunction cannot be granted, and courts apply these principles at the interim stage too.
| Section 41 clause | No injunction... |
|---|---|
| (b) | to restrain proceedings in a court not subordinate to the one asked |
| (d) | to restrain criminal proceedings |
| (e) | to prevent breach of a contract that would not be specifically enforced |
| (g) | to prevent a continuing breach the plaintiff has acquiesced in |
| (h) | where equally efficacious relief can certainly be had by another usual mode, except for breach of trust |
| (ha) | if it would impede or delay an infrastructure project (inserted from 1 October 2018) |
| (i) | where the plaintiff's conduct disentitles him to the court's help |
A plaintiff who obtains an injunction on insufficient grounds also takes a risk. Under section 95 CPC the court may award the defendant compensation up to fifty thousand rupees, within its pecuniary limits, for expense or injury, including injury to reputation.
What remedies follow a breach of the injunction, and how are orders challenged?
Disobedience is dealt with under Rule 2A. The court may attach the property of the person in breach and order his detention in civil prison for up to three months. An attachment lasts no longer than one year, after which, if the breach continues, the property may be sold and compensation paid out of the proceeds.
Orders under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of Order XXXIX are appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r). The appeal is not a rehearing on discretion. Following Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990), and as restated in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (2024), the appellate court will not substitute its own view unless the trial court acted arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or ignored settled principles.
For a member of the public worried about forcible dispossession by a landlord, the plain-language guide to tenant rights in India explains the background law, and specific questions can be put to verified advocates through Ask a Lawyer on rent and tenancy. This is general information, and a lawyer should be consulted for a specific case.
How temporary injunctions are tested in judiciary exams
Prelims questions test numbers and rules: thirty days in Rule 3A, three months' civil prison and one year of attachment in Rule 2A, appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), and the ceiling of fifty thousand rupees in section 95. Expect a statement pairing "prima facie case" with "prima facie title" to test whether you know Dalpat Kumar.
Mains papers prefer either a problem or a draft order. When writing an order on an injunction application, frame the three points for determination separately, discuss each with reference to the pleadings and documents, deal with delay and conduct, and only then pass the operative order with its terms. The structure examiners expect is covered in what separates a strong judgment writing answer.
Key points to remember
- The power comes from section 94(c) CPC, Order XXXIX and section 37 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience must all be shown (Dalpat Kumar).
- A prima facie case means a serious triable issue, not proof of title.
- An ex parte order needs recorded reasons, immediate service of papers and an affidavit of compliance; disposal is to be attempted within thirty days.
- Interim mandatory injunctions need a strong case for trial (Dorab Cawasji Warden).
- Section 52 TPA does not displace the power to restrain alienation (Ramakant Ambalal Choksi, 2024).
- Breach invites attachment and civil prison up to three months under Rule 2A.
Where to go next
Practise the rule numbers on the Civil Procedure Code mock tests and the Specific Relief Act mock tests, since examiners often set questions that cross between the two statutes. Before a prelims attempt, a quick pass through the rule numbers in this post is worth more than another reading of commentary.