The Injunction under O. 39 Rule 1 & 2 cannot be given in every case and the requirements of the rules have to be satisfied. The grant of an injunction by the court is based on the discretion of the court which is to be exercised judicially. Injunction is a process by court which requires a party to do something refrain from doing something in the course of the proceedings. It is an extraordinary remedy that is being availed by the party through court’s order. Interim orders are necessary to deal with and protect rights of the parties in the interval between the commencement of the proceedings and final adjudication. They prevent abuse of process during the pendency of proceedings
The primary reason to grant the injunction is to maintain the status quo so that the rights and liabilities of the parties can be determined conclusively.
Rule 1 gives the grounds for granting of an injunction such as: –
- When the property in the dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party
- Defendant threatens to remove or dispose of property to defraud his creditors
- When the defendant threatens to dispose of or causes injury to the plaintiff for any property
- When the defendant about to commit a breach of contract or other injuries
- When the court finds it necessary in the interest of justice.
If the above requirements are fulfilled by the party granting injunction then the court can satisfactorily give the order of injunction. It is an extraordinary remedy because it is related to the enjoyment of the property of the party. Therefore, it can be refused by the court if the above conditions do not fulfil the grant of injunction. If the answer to the following questions is in affirmative then injunction can be granted: –
- Prima facie case – if the plaintiff makes out prima facie case in support of his claim by him then the court can grant. This does not mean the court has to delve into the issues or conclusive arguments of the parties but if on the face it finds that the plaintiff has a case for injunction then the court can grant it.
- Irreparable injury – if the plaintiff suffers from injury which cannot be compensated in terms of damages then the court can grant injunction. It means that injury is material that cannot be adequately compensated by damages and not that it can’t be repaired in the literal sense.
- Balance of convenience – the court must be satisfied that the refusal of the injunction would cause more harm than the grant of injunction to the plaintiff. It is the most simple and straight test to see if an injunction can be granted or not because it not always the plaintiff who suffers the injury but the defendant also suffers by the grant of injunction. Therefore, if the court finds that the balance of convenience is greater for the defendant it can also refuse to grant the injunction.
- Other factors – the above test are the rigid rule and the court can look into other factors in the interest of justice.