Temporary Injunctions under Order 39 CPC: Complete Guide

Temporary Injunctions under Order 39 CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , read with Sections 36–42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), provides the framework for temporary (interlocutory) injunctions—the most commonly invoked interim relief in Indian civil litigation. Temporary injunctions preserve the status quo of the property/right in dispute until the suit is decided or further orders are passed.

This guide explains: meaning and object; when courts can grant and when they will refuse a temporary injunction; the three-part test; ex-parte safeguards; discharge/variation; breach consequences; appealability; statutory bars under SRA s.41; plus recent Supreme Court and High Court remarks you can cite.

What is an Injunction?

An injunction is a judicial command to do or not do a specific act.

Prohibitory/Restrictive injunction: restrains a party from a threatened or continuing wrong.
Mandatory injunction: compels performance of a positive act (rarer at interim stage; granted only in clear, exceptional cases).

By duration:

Temporary (interlocutory) injunction: operates during the suit or until further orders (Order 39 CPC; SRA s.37(1)).
Perpetual (permanent) injunction: final relief on merits (SRA s.37(2), s.38, subject to s.41).

Object: to maintain status quo and prevent irreparable harm that would render the eventual decree nugatory.

When Courts CAN Grant Temporary Injunction (Order 39 Rules 1–2 CPC)

A court may grant a temporary injunction where pleadings and affidavits disclose any of the following (illustrative, not exhaustive):

Property at risk: The subject property is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution. (Order 39 r.1).
Fraudulent dissipation: Defendant threatens to remove or dispose of assets to defraud creditors. (Order 39 r.1).
Threat of dispossession/injury: Defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury regarding the property in dispute. (Order 39 r.1).
Breach of contract or other injury imminent: Defendant is about to commit a breach of contract or any other wrongful act affecting the plaintiff’s rights (Order 39 r.2).
Interests of justice: Court’s residuary power under s.94(c) CPC to issue temporary injunctions to meet the ends of justice. (Used sparingly and in line with Order 39).

The Three-Part Test (Prima Facie, Irreparable Injury, Balance of Convenience)

Courts apply a triad before granting injunctions:

Prima facie case: A bona fide, arguable right requiring protection—not a full adjudication, but more than a mere triable issue.
- Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 — interim relief is discretionary; the plaintiff must establish a genuine prima facie right and not rely on mere assertions.
- Seema Arshad Zaheer v. MCGM (2006) 5 SCC 282 — reinforces evaluation of prima facie case alongside irreparable injury and balance of convenience.

Irreparable injury: Likely injury not adequately compensable in money, or where damages would be speculative/inadequate. Cardinal principle affirmed in Dalpat Kumar.
Balance of convenience: Comparative hardship—whether greater mischief will result from granting or refusing the injunction. Courts also consider public interest where relevant.

Appellate restraint: On appeal against an interim order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, the appellate court does not re-try the matter; it interferes only if the trial court’s discretion is arbitrary/capricious/perverse. This rule is famously captured in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (1990 Supp SCC 727) and reaffirmed it repeatedly.

A recent Supreme Court (2024) decision set aside a High Court’s interference with a trial court’s well-reasoned injunction, reiterating that appellate courts must not substitute their view in interlocutory matters absent perversity; it cited Wander, Monsanto v. Nuziveedu (2019) 3 SCC 381, and Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel (2023) 1 SCC 634.

Money Recovery Cases : A Complete Legal Guide

What is Equitable Relief?

Equitable relief means a remedy given by the court that is based on principles of fairness, justice, and equity rather than strict application of written law.
In other words, when money (damages/compensation) is not enough to protect the rights of a party, the court steps in and uses its discretionary power to give a fair solution.
Injunctions are one of the most important forms of equitable relief in India.

👉 Key point: Unlike legal remedies (which are a matter of right), equitable relief is not automatic. It depends on the court’s discretion, guided by fairness and the conduct of the parties.

Example of Equitable Relief in Injunction Cases

🔹 Example 1 – Protecting Property:
Suppose A owns agricultural land, and B (a neighbour) threatens to illegally construct a wall on it.

If the wall is built, even if A later wins the case, the damage to his land may be permanent.
Money alone cannot undo the harm.
The court can issue a temporary injunction stopping B from constructing, as an equitable relief.

🔹 Example 2 – Trademark Infringement:
A company uses a brand name similar to yours, misleading customers.

Even if you can claim damages later, your reputation and goodwill would be harmed beyond repair.
So, the court may grant a permanent injunction restraining the other company from using your brand.

When Courts will NOT Grant Temporary Injunction

Temporary injunctions are equitable and discretionary. Besides failure of the three-part test, courts refuse where conduct or statute bars relief.

A. Conduct-based refusals (equity)

Delay/Laches: Sleeping over rights can defeat equity.
Acquiescence: Knowing silence while the defendant acts.
Suppression/unclean hands: Concealing material facts or misstatements—especially fatal in ex-parte motions.
Adequate alternative remedy: Where damages or another remedy is equally efficacious, courts avoid injunctions.

These themes recur across Dalpat Kumar, Seema Arshad Zaheer, and other decisions.

B. Statutory bars under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (s.41)

Section 41 SRA expressly lists instances where injunction “cannot be granted” (applies paradigmatically to permanent injunctions, but courts analogically consider these bars even at interim stage). Key clauses:

s.41(a): Not to restrain pending judicial proceedings, except to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
s.41(b): Not to restrain proceedings in a court not subordinate to the one from which injunction is sought.
s.41(d): Not to restrain a person from applying to a legislative body.
s.41(e): Not to prevent breach of a contract not specifically enforceable.
s.41(f): Not to prevent acts not actionable as nuisance.
s.41(g): Not where plaintiff has acquiesced.
s.41(h): Not where equally efficacious relief is available (except breach of trust).
s.41(i): Not to restrain a continuous breach if effective relief can be obtained by another usual process.
s.41(ha)/s.20A SRA: No injunction if it would impede/delay specified infrastructure projects.

Commercial/Contract context: Because s.41(e) ties injunctions to specific enforceability, where a contract is in its nature determinable (SRA s.14) courts are reluctant to restrain termination via interim orders.

C. Illustrative case-driven refusals

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca-Cola (1995): Courts may enforce negative covenants, but will be cautious where the net effect is to specifically enforce a determinable contract.
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117): Interim mandatory injunctions are exceptional—granted only to restore status quo ante or where a high degree of assurance supports the plaintiff’s case.

Ex-Parte Temporary Injunctions: Safeguards & Compliance (Order 39 Rule 3 CPC)

Notice is the rule. An ex-parte injunction is an exception and requires strict statutory compliance:

Court must record reasons showing that delay would defeat the object.
Applicant must immediately serve the plaint, application, affidavit, and documents on the opposite party and file an affidavit of service.
Courts should endeavour to finally dispose of ex-parte applications within ~30 days.

The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 declared these safeguards mandatory, not ritual. Recent benches have reiterated that non-compliance vitiates ex-parte orders; High Courts routinely vacate such injunctions for procedural breaches.

Very recent reiterations: Commentaries on 2025 SLPs and HC decisions echo that failure to follow Order 39 Rule 3 leads to automatic vacation of ex-parte restraints—relying squarely on Shiv Kumar Chadha. (Use cautiously as secondary sources.)

Breach of Injunction (Order 39 Rule 2A CPC; CPC s.94(c))

Consequences include:

Detention in civil prison (up to three months).
Attachment of property (up to one year; sale if breach persists).
Orders bind not just corporations but also officers and members whose personal acts are restrained.

Where to file Appeal ? (Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC)

Appeals lie from orders under Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, and 10. But the appellate scope is narrow: per Wander, Monsanto v. Nuziveedu (2019) 3 SCC 381) and Shyam Sel & Power (2023) 1 SCC 634), appellate courts should not supplant the trial court’s discretion unless the order is perverse/arbitrary or ignores settled principles. A 2024 Supreme Court judgment re-emphasized this restraint and restored the trial court’s injunction where the High Court had overreached.

Interlocutory Orders (Order 39 Rules 6–10): Quick Snapshot

Rule 6 – Interim sale of movable property susceptible to decay or where there is just cause.
Rule 7 – Detention/preservation/inspection, entry to land/buildings, sampling, experiments.
Rule 8 – Notice generally required for orders under r.6/r.7.
Rule 9/10 – Delivery/Deposit of property or admission of title/amount by any party.

These powers supplement injunctions to preserve evidence and protect the res pending trial.

Practice Notes: How to Win (or Defend) an Order 39 Application

As Plaintiff (Applicant):

Establish a clean prima facie narrative with documents (title, possession, contracts, usage).
Prove irreparable prejudice (uniqueness of property, difficulty of valuation, risk of multiplicity).
Address balance of convenience head-on: show minimal prejudice to defendant if restrained, and offer undertakings (e.g., damages).
If ex-parte, scrupulously comply with Rule 3 (reasons, service, affidavit of service).

As Defendant (Respondent):

Attack prima facie right (title gaps, determinable contracts, alternate remedy).
Demonstrate adequacy of damages and prejudice if restrained.
Highlight s.41 SRA bars (esp. 41(e)/(h)) and public interest/infrastructure carve-outs (s.20A, 41(ha)).
If ex-parte, test and expose Rule 3 non-compliance.

Recent Case Law to Cite

Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (1990 Supp SCC 727) — Appellate interference with interim discretion is limited; do not re-appraise unless the view is perverse/arbitrary.
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 — Defines triad; injunction is discretionary; mere triable issue isn’t enough.
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 — Ex-parte injunction safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 are mandatory.
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117) — Interim mandatory injunctions only in exceptional cases with high degree of assurance.
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca-Cola (1995) — Approach to negative covenants; caution where contracts are determinable.
Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation (2009) 11 SCC 229) — Reiterates Order 39 standards; cautions against granting relief that virtually decrees the suit.
Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019) 3 SCC 381) — Appellate courts shouldn’t usurp the single judge’s discretion on the three tests. Cited approvingly again in 2024 SC.
Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. (2023) 1 SCC 634 — Reaffirms hierarchy-based restraint; appellate role is limited. Cited in 2024 SC.
Supreme Court, 22 Nov 2024 (reported as 2024 INSC 913) — Set aside High Court’s interference; reiterated Wander line: appellate courts must not substitute their view absent perversity/arbitrariness/malafides and must stick to Order 43 contours in Order 39 matters.

BNS-Section-82-Bigamy-1-min-1-1024x1024 Temporary Injunctions under Order 39 CPC: Complete Guide — Temporary Injunctions under Order 39 CPC

FAQs (SEO-friendly)

Q1: What is a temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC?
A court order preserving status quo to prevent irreparable harm until the suit is decided. It can restrain actions (prohibitory) or, rarely, compel actions (mandatory). Grounds flow from Order 39 rr.1–2 CPC.

Q2: What are the conditions for grant?
The three tests: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience—from Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and others.

Q3: Can an injunction be granted without notice (ex-parte)?
Yes, but only where delay defeats the purpose; court must record reasons and the applicant must serve papers immediately and file an affidavit of service. Non-compliance can vacate the order. Shiv Kumar Chadha controls.

Q4: When will courts refuse an injunction?
Apart from failing the triad, SRA s.41 bars apply (e.g., pending proceedings in a non-subordinate court, equally efficacious remedy, determinable contracts, infrastructure projects), plus equity-based bars like delay, acquiescence, unclean hands.

Q5: What is the difference between temporary and permanent injunctions?
Temporary injunctions are interim (Order 39; s.37(1) SRA). Permanent injunctions adjudicate rights finally (s.37(2), s.38 SRA) and are subject to s.41 bars.

Q6: Can appellate courts re-appreciate evidence and reverse interim injunctions?
Only within a narrow compass: interfere if the order is perverse, arbitrary, or ignores settled principles. Wander, Monsanto, Shyam Sel, and 2024 SC reaffirm this caution.

Q7: Are interim mandatory injunctions possible?
Yes, but exceptional: to restore status quo ante or prevent grave injustice where the court has a high degree of assurance about the plaintiff’s case. Dorab Cawasji Warden is the touchstone.

Q8: Can a court restrain termination of a contract via injunction?
If the contract is determinable (SRA s.14), courts are generally reluctant to grant injunctions (s.41(e)). Negative covenants may be enforced, but courts avoid orders that indirectly enforce a determinable contract. Gujarat Bottling guides.

Q9: What happens if someone violates an injunction?
The court may order civil imprisonment (up to 3 months) and attach/sell property under Order 39 r.2A and s.94(c) CPC.

Q10: How soon must an ex-parte injunction application be heard finally?
Courts endeavour to dispose of such applications within about 30 days; if delayed, they should record reasons. This keeps ex-parte restraints truly temporary.

“When Granted” vs “When Refused” — Quick List for Pleadings

Grant likely when:

Title/possession documents show a credible right and imminent threat (waste, alienation, dispossession).
Irreparable prejudice is real (unique property; loss can’t be measured).
Balance of convenience favours restraint; undertakings offered (e.g., damages).

Refused when:

Delay/laches, acquiescence, suppression, or alternative efficacious remedy exists.
Relief would virtually decree the suit (especially in mandatory terms) or contradict SRA s.41 bars—e.g., restraining non-subordinate proceedings, enforcing determinable contracts, infrastructure projects carve-out under s.20A/41(ha).

Drafting & Strategy Tips (for practitioners and students)

Affidavits must be fact-rich with exhibits (title, taxes, plans, photos, inspection reports).
Explain urgency; if seeking ex-parte, ensure Rule 3 compliance is front-and-centre (recorded reasons + service/affidavit). Non-compliance = vacation.
Tailor the prayer: Avoid over-broad or final-relief-like language; ask for calibrated restraints (e.g., “no third-party rights”, “maintain possession”, “preserve structure”).
Offer undertakings (expedited trial, security) to tilt balance of convenience.
On appeal, highlight Wander and the limited scope: point out no perversity = no interference. 2024 SC is a strong citation.

Conclusion

A temporary injunction is a vital but cautiously used remedy. Success depends on credible documents, clean conduct, and meeting the triad. Ex-parte orders demand strict statutory compliance. Appellate courts show deference to trial discretion unless the order is perverse. And the SRA’s s.41 bars, especially post-2018 infrastructure amendments, can be decisive filters. Use the case law above—especially Wander, Dalpat Kumar, Shiv Kumar Chadha, Dorab Cawasji, and the 2024 Supreme Court reminder—to structure arguments and anticipate objections.