Injunctions and Its Effects under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Introduction and Meaning

Any equitable remedy being provided, which compels a party for doing and refraining party from a particular act in the form of the court order is called to an injunction. Here “act” refers to one which is unjust to the opposite party. This remedy has been originated in the English Court of Equity[1]. Halsbury’s explain it as” A judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing” whereas the oxford dictionary explains it as “ judicial warning or a judicial order restraining a person from an action or compelling a person for carrying out certain acts”. It is the basic principle of law that wherever a right is present it is always be having a remedy on the other hand and when we look at “Injunctions“ it is that judicial remedy commanding a party to do some act said to be as “commanding injunction” or restrain one for doing some act said to be as” restrictive injunction”. Traditionally it was given where a wrong can’t be awarded in money value. It belongs to remedy against the individual.

  • Public interest
  • Question of fairness
  • Good faith


  • Primarily for granting interim relief. (court exercising sound judicial discretion may or may not grant it, it is completely on courts discretion if feel satisfied)
  • Preserving the status quo at the initial stage of proceedings for preventing any changes before a final decision comes.
  •   Maintaining the protective nature of relief, preventing any future possible injury.

 Temporary injunctions granted by Indian courts under section 94, 95 and Order XXXIX  of Civil Procedural Court whereas we can also see perpetual and temporary  injunctions in the light of section 42 and 36 of Specific Relief Act

  • Temporary injunction

Granted when an interlocutory application in between of ongoing procedure of a suit. This is so called because vouchsafe before the final decision.

  • Perpetual injunction

This can only be granted by the medium of final decree after hearing upon all the facts and merits of the suit.


  • Deterrent restrictive or proscriptive, something done by one party.
  • Obligatory compelling , commanding and ordering one party for doing something.


  • A defendant or plaintiff anyone may apply by filing application in the court.


  • May be issued at most against party to the suit. It cannot be against any third party or uncanny.


  • Provided when one party in a suit causes injury to another party in relation to the property with the dispute.
  • Court grants it for the purpose of restraining the above-mentioned injury.
  • In the case when a party is creating rights or interests of any uncanny for the disposal of property in dispute; temporary injunction is a remedy to this existing condition.
  • The main use is needed where immediate relief is required.
  • The burden to satisfy the court that he has prima facie lies on the applicant for the condition precedent for granting temporary injunctions.
  • Section 9A (2) of CPC, empowers court to grant interim relief as per the condition required.

In the light of Section 94(c) and (e) of CPC court grants interlocutory order to prevent justice from being defeated further if court is not satisfied with the grounds for instituting the temporary injunction, presented by the party; at the application of another party may provide reasonable compensation to the extent of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court where the suit is being trialed. Gujrat Bottling Co. Ltd. Case

Certain guidelines to be followed were given for the grant of temporary injunction.

  • Court should not examine the merits of the suit rather it should go with the basic facts established by the applicant having prima facie to contest case.
  • Court also needed to examine the applicant’s conduct even when the application had been set aside under Order XXXIX rule 4 of CPC.
  • Court need to do comparative studies of the laws to be caused after passing such order.


  • According to the proviso of order XXXIX rule 3 it is the duty of court to record the reason of granting ex-parte to the application of injunction.
  • It also puts a duty on the party in whose favor the order is being passed, for communicating along with all pertinent documents to other party by the means of registered post.[2]


Under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act circumstances for granting perpetual injunction are been provided, the court further needs to take the guidance of chapter II of Specific Relief Act in the view of subsection 3 where, when a party threats for invading the privileges of another party for the enjoyment of the property in dispute. For establishing the right to seek perpetual injunction required by adducing substantial evidence where a part’s title is not in dispute but he is out of his possession then the party has to sue further possession with consequential.[3] However, courts would be advised well for specifically in passing the order when interim orders are vacated and if at time of restoration of the suits court if think can review that interlocutory order[4].


Under section 41 of Specific Relief Act, Restrain a person from bringing up suit

  1. For preventing multiplicity of the proceedings.
  2. Prosecuting in a court subordinate to one in which injunction sought.
  3. To apply to any legislative body
  4. Instituting in the criminal matter
  5. Prevent of breach of contract
  6. Prevention of ground of nuisance
  7. Preventing a continuous breach where the plaintiff has acquiesced
  8. When effective relief could be obtained in any other
  9. Where the conduct of the plaintiff
  10. Where personal interest of plaintiff doesn’t exist in matter


  • Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are provided generally for preserving controversy till the time final decision comes.
  •  While granting it the court must take care of the effect of the injunction should be to prevent irremediable injury.
  • It can only be issued during the extreme hard circumstances of the case.
  • Exercised only when the case falls strictly under section 37 to 41 of the Specific Relief Act.
  • Could be contemplated under section 13 and 39 of Specific Relief Act.
  • In addition of these injunctions section 40 of Specific Relief Act grant damages in lieu.
  • Section 42 of Specific Relief Act allows injunction for performing negative agreement based on principle of equity.
  • According to order 21 rule 32 (1) whoever would go against the decree of judgment could either be sent to civil prison or his property could be attached or both.
  • Advertisement
  • And rule 32 (5) court may ask that person to perform some act to execute the decree or appoint some person for execution at the cost of judgment-debtor.
  • Decree holder will face consequences if decree does not get executed within 12 years according to the article of Limitation Act.[5]
  • The appeal lies only in such case only when a specific order is mentioned under Section 104 Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. [6]


  • If breach continued over period of one year then court could sell out the property attached and compensate to affected party.[7]
  • Remedy to disobedience continues meanwhile the attachment would also be ceased.[8]

      SECTION 95 CPC

“Effect of injunction granted on insufficient grounds”

In case where arrest or attachment effected the temporary injunction in last proceedings-

  1. it appears to the Court that such capture, connection or directive was applied for on inadequate grounds, or
  2. the suit of the offended party comes up short and it appears to the Court that there was no sensible or likely justification for founding the equivalent

Accommodates a rundown solution for getting remuneration where a brief directive has been allowed if such order was applied for on deficient grounds or there were no sensible or likely justification for founding the case for the directive. The respondent in such a procedure is basically to introduce an appeal to the court and the court subject to its financial locale can surrender remuneration to Rs. 1,000/ – . The cure under the code is discretionary and a harmed gathering can document a customary suit against the candidate for orders for remuneration on the off chance that he has not effectively looked for alleviation under the aforementioned arrangement. Along these lines, this segment is an elective cure in instances of unjust acquisition of a directive and it doesn’t in any route meddle with the standards directing suits for harms for the misdeed of the malevolent legitimate cycle[9].

Also Read: The doctrine of Res judicata


As an overall standard where two cures are accessible under law one of them ought not to be taken as working in disparagement of the other. An ordinary suit won’t be banished by a synopsis and a simultaneous cure being additionally given in this way, however in the event that a gathering has chosen for seeking after one Common PROCEDURE CODE  cure he is limited by it and can’t on his flopping in that continue under another arrangement. An ordinary suit for remuneration isn’t banished by the oversight to continue under synopsis strategy given under Section 95, CPC, yet in the event that an application is made and discarded, such removal would work as a bar to ordinary suit whatever might be the consequence of the application. There is, in any case, a distinction between conditions important for the practicality of an application under Section 95, CPC and those important to keep up a suit. The ordinary suit depends on misdeed for manhandling the cycle of Court. Under the law of misdeeds in a suit for pay for the misdeed, the offended party must not just demonstrate the need of sensible or reasonable justification of getting directive however additionally that the litigant was pulled in by vindictiveness which is an inappropriate rationale[10].

The simple truth that the litigant was flat out broke, had endured coercive common and income measures and had recently made a distance of some property isn’t confirmation of the truth that the respondent was, in reality, going to discard his property and isn’t adequate to empower a Court to arrange a connection before judgment. A request under Sect. 95, Civil Procedure Code, rejecting remuneration for illegitimate connection prior to judgment is appealable under Sect. 104 of the Civil Procedure Code[11].

Mohan Misser and Ors v Surendra Narain Singh and Ors [12]

  • No suit lies for harms against a Defendant for malevolently and without sensible and reasonable justification getting a never-ending order which has been in this way broke down on offer.
  • A transitory order allowed in such a suit is ipso facto broken up by the Court’s declaration allowing a never-ending order.
  • In a suit for harms in regard of the transitory order, impediment would in this way run from the date when the brief directive was broken down by the declaration conceding interminable directive.

Per Fletcher, J.— A charge by the Plaintiff that the Defendants were activated by noxiousness and that their suit for interminable directive eventually demonstrated fruitless when the pronouncement of the High Court in support of themselves was put aside by His Majesty in Council was not an adequate charge of the need of sensible and reasonable justification.

  • Need of reasonable justification isn’t to be deduced in view of simple proof of malignance.

Per Richardson, J.— Sec. 95, C.P.C., appears to examine the chance of a suit being brought to recoup pay in regard of an impermanent order applied for on lacking grounds or then again in a suit founded without sensible or reasonable justification.

  • A gathering isn’t obligated in harms for securing an incorrect choice.

[1]  Takwani, CK, 2016 edn, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow

[2] Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1193) 3 SSC 161

[3][3] Anathula Sudhaker Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs & Ors AIR 2008 SC 2033

[4] Vareeeb Jacob vs. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors (2004) 6 SCC 378

[5]Article 136 Limitation Act 1963

[6] Ramji Gupta Vs. Gopi Krishan AIR 2013 SC 3099

[7] Sub-Rule 2 Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C.

[8] ibid

[9] Bank of India v Lakshimani Dass and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 640.

[10] ibid

[11] Narahari Iyer v Vathinatha Iyer (1919) 9 LW 69 (Mad)(DB).

[12] 1914 SCC Online 172

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *