INJUNCTION ORDER 39 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, an injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the court addressed to a particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).

In other words, an injunction is a remedy granted by the court that prohibits the commission of a wrong threatened or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun. If a party fails to comply with an injunction granted by a court, then the party could face criminal or civil penalties or contempt of court.

Injunction is of two types:

1. Permanent Injunction:- It is a type of injunction which restrains a party forever from doing the specified act. It can be granted only on merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties. It is governed by the section 38-42 of SRA, 1963.
2. Temporary Injunction:- It also restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act. In simple words, injunction which is time specified. It can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until the further order of the court. It is regulated by the provision of Order XXXIX of CPC.

Further types of Injunction:

1. Mandatory Injunction:- A mandatory injunction is issued when a court directs a person to perform certain acts, as opposed to prohibitory injunction, which seeks to preserve the status quo. The defendant named in a mandatory injunction must undo the wrong or injury that one has caused. For example, if a court orders the removal of a building or structure due to misplaced construction, then it fits the description of a mandatory injunction.
2. Prohibitory Injunction:- A prohibitory injunction when granted by a court, prohibits the defendant from doing a wrongful act that would be an infringement of the plaintiff’s legal rights.  For example, prohibitory injunctions restrain a breach of contract or to protect the disclosure of confidential information.

The provisions of Injunction deal in the Order 39 Rule 1-5 of the CPC, 1908.

Rule 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted

Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors,
[(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,]
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

Rule 2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.—
(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

RULE 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.—
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of
which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the
proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the
balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.]

Rule 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party.—
The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite
party:
[Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant—
(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with—
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
(ii) a copy of the plaint; and
(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant, relies, and
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.]

Objects of Temporary Injunctions:

1. The preservation of property in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the
   court are adjudicated.
2. To maintain and preserve status quo at the time of institution of the proceedings and to prevent any
   change in it until the final determination of the suit.

Principles / Conditions for granting Injunctions:

1. Prima Facie Case:- The existence of a prima facie right and infraction of such right is a condition precedent for grant of temporary injunction. The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by leading evidence or otherwise that he has a prima facie case in his favour. The court should not examine the merits of the case closely at that stage because it is not expected to decide the suit finally. In deciding a prima facie case, the court is to be guided by the plaintiff’s case as revealed in the plaint, affidavits or other materials produced by him.
2. Irreparable Injury:- The court must be satisfied that refusal to grant injunction would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and he needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury. Granting of injunction is an equitable relief and such a power can be exercised when judicial intervention is absolutely necessary to protect rights and interests of the applicant. The irreparable injury must be a material one, i.e. which cannot be adequately compensated by damages. An injury will be regarded as irreparable where there exist no specific or fixed pecuniary standards for measuring damages.
3. Balance of Convenience:- The third condition for granting interim injunction is that the balance of convenience must be in favour of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience means if the injunction is granted or not granted then who will be at more inconvenience and hardship.

Non-Compliance with Injunction Order:

1. Intentional disobedience of the direction of the court would constitute contempt of court. If a person
   has not obeyed the order of the court, the court may also refuse to hear him on merits. [Prestige Lights
   Ltd. v. SBI, (2007)].
2. Section 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 provide for the consequences resulting from a disobedience or breach of an order of injunction issued by the court.
3. The penalty may be either arrest of the opponent or attachment of his property or both. However, the detention in civil prison shall not exceed three months and the attachment of property shall not remain in force for more than one year.
4. If the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and, out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

Manohar Lal vs Seth Hira Lal

Facts: The appellant and the respondent entered into a partnership at Indore for working coal mines at Kajora gram (District Burdwan) and manufacture of cement etc., in the name and style of ‘Diamond Industries’. The partnership was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 22nd August 1945. On 18^th August 1948, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol against the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of his share in the capital and assets of the partnership firm ‘Diamond Industries’ and Rs. 18,000/- as interest for detention of the money or as damages or compensation for wrongful withholding of the payment. On October 27, 1948, respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Asansol Court praying for the stay of the suit in view of the arbitration agreement in the original deed of partnership.

• This application was rejected on 20^th August 1949.

• The respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Indore under Sections 10 and 151 CPC. The application was opposed by the respondent on three grounds:Later on, the respondent applied under Section 151 CPC the Indore Court, restraining the appellant from continuing the proceedings in the suit filed by him in the Court at Asansol.The Learned District Judge, Indore issued interim injunction to the appellant restraining him from proceeding with his Asansol suit as the appellant violated the provision in the deed of the dissolution.Aggrieved from the issue of injunction, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Bharat (Now Madhya Pradesh), which dismissed the appeal.Hence, this appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India.The first one was the deed in dissolution, that Court alone could decide the disputes. Second was that the suit in Asansol Court could not have the effect of staying the proceedings of that suit.The third one was that the two suits were different in nature, their subject matter and relief claimed being different.
  Issue: Whether the Court could not exercise its inherent powers when there are specific provisions in the CPC for the issuance of interim injunctions?
  Whether the Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, exercised its discretion properly, keeping the facts of the case in mind?
  Judgement: The Court observed that the section itself says that nothing in the Code (CPC) shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of CPC control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it.The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. The Court further observed that when CPC itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code. The Court further said the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised by the Court in very exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. The question of jurisdiction of the Asansol Court over the subject matter of the suit before it will be decided by that Court. The Indore Court cannot decide that question. The Court said that the jurisdiction of the Asansol Court is not ousted by the provisions of the proviso in the deed of dissolution, even though that proviso expresses the choice of the parties for having their disputes decided in the Court at Indore.
  Hence, it is held that the court cannot exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC order an injunction when a specific provision under Order XXXIX to grant temporary injunction is enshrined in the Code.

Dalpat Kaur v. Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 SC 276

Facts: The case involved a dispute over the possession of certain property. The appellant enter into an agreement to purchase a residential house for 51000 rs. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession of the property. Trial Court reject the application but confirmed by the High Court.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case?
Whether the balance of convenience lay in their favor?
Whether they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted?
Judgement: Court said that while granting ad interim injunction, the court should kept in mind the following three principles:
1. In claiming injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to adduce evidence by affidavit or otherwise showing that there is a prima facie case in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. If plaintiff shows that she has prima facie case then, one of the condition gets fulfilled.
2. But the existence of the prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in”irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehend injury or dispossession. If irreparable injury is shown then second gets fulfilled.
3. The Third condition is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued.The CPC is undoubtedly not exhaustive.The civil courts are authorized to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of court, but where an express provision is made to meet a particular situation, the Code must be observed, a departure there from is not permissible.
Court held that High Court committed manifest error setting aside the decision of the HC and Trial Court’s decision is confirmed. Appeal allowed. Court held that temporary injunctions are granted judiciously and only in appropriate cases.

PRESENT CASE:

Q. 4/2020. C is liable under Order 39 Rule 2A if he had knowledge of the injunction and willfully disobeyed it, as he would be deemed to be acting as B’s agent or aiding her in disobedience. CASE: Ram prasad Singh vs Subodh Prasad Singh, In this case, it was held that a person is liable to be proceeded against Order XXXIX, Rule 12A, CPC even if he is not personally a party to the suit provided he is known to have been agent or servant of the defendant and to have violated the order of injunction in spite of knowledge that there was such an order.