The definition which holistically captures the essence of injunctions is the one provided by Halsbury who claimed

that “An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party in an order to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or
thing”.

Temporary Injunction & its basic principles

In its essence, a temporary injunction is an interim remedy to maintain the status quo of the parties with regards to
the property in dispute during the pendency of the case. The aim of temporary injunctions in the Indian law is to
protect a party to the suit against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated
in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial. The aforementioned
aim was highlighted in the case of M/S Gujarat Pottling Co. Ltd. & Ors v. The Coca Cola Company & Ors. (1995).

Requirements for Temporary Injunctions

The case of Dalpat Kumar And Another v. Pralhad Singh And Others (1991) has settled the three main requirements
for granting a temporary injunction, they are:

1. Prima Facie Case

It means that the case they build for their injunction must be meritorious enough, not to be rejected instantly.

2. Irreparable Loss

3. Balance of convenience
The court needs to compare the case of parties, comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to sue from
withholding the injunction will be greater than which is likely to arrive from granting it.

1. Order 39, Rule 1 talks about the cases in which the court may grant a temporary injunction as a
statutory relief, they are:

•In the case of property dispute, if the property in question is under a risk of being wasted, damaged or
alienated or wrongfully sold by an individual involved in the suit.
•If the plaintiff is threatened – by the defendant – to be dispossessed or injured in the context of the
property dispute under question.
•If the defendant were to commit a breach of peace or contract. The aforementioned ground is also
highlighted in Order 39, Rule 2 of the CPC, 1908.
•Lastly, the court may issue an injunction if it is of the opinion that it would be an act in the interest of
justice.

2. Order 39, Rule 2-A talks about the non-compliance of an individual with regards to an injunction, they
are:

•It mandates the detainment of that individual in civil prison for not more than three months.
•Furthermore, it warrants the attachment of property of that guilty individual for not more than a year.
However, if the delinquency were to continue, the property may be sold.
 •In the case of Ram Prasad Singh v. Subodh Prasad Singh (1983), it was highlighted that it is not necessary
for an individual to be a party to the concerned suit, to be liable under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC,
1908, provided it is known that he was an agent of the defendant and violated the injunction despite
being aware of the same.

1. Usually, the court is required to issue a notice to the opposite party regarding the application of
injunction, but through Order 39, Rule 3, the court can grant an ex-parte injunction when it is under the
belief that the object of the injunction would be defeated because of delay.
2. Order 39, Rule 4 lays down that an injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside, if any dissatisfied
party makes an appeal against it, provided that:

•Furtherthermore, the court may also set aside the injunction if, due to a change of circumstances, the party
against whom the injunction is granted, has suffered unnecessary hardships.

5. Order 39, Rule 5 makes an important point that, if an injunction is granted against a corporation or a
firm, the authority of the injunction is not limited to the corporation as an entity alone, members and
officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain are also included under its ambit.

Interlocutory orders They settle those subordinate issues which may be necessary for deciding the outcome of the
case – intangibly – and need a swift decision because of the time-sensitivity of those issues. These orders exist to
make sure that the involved parties’ interests are not harmed during the due process of justice. Interlocutory orders
may take on many shapes and sizes including, but not limited to, notice to conduct search and seizure, temporary
injunction, payment into court, etc.

However, in the case of the Sub Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court
noted that an interlocutory order must not be passed if it were to have any inference of pre-judging some important
and delicate issue related to the main matter.

Reading Rules 6-10 of the Code on Civil Procedure 1908, will give us a proper understanding of the weight of
interlocutory orders in the Indian legal system.

1. Order 39, Rule 6 talks about the power to hold an interim sale. The court may order the sale of any
movable property being the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, these movable properties also
include such things which are subject to natural delay and will be rendered futile if not sold swiftly. For
example, the court may order the sale of fruits and vegetables if they are a matter of suit as they cannot
be stored indefinitely and are perishable goods.
2. Order 39, Rule 7 Essentially, the court may order any individual to retain, preserve or inspect the
property of dispute. The court may pass such an order specific observations or experiments upon the
disputed land if it were to deem it necessary for the purpose of obtaining complete information.
3. Order 39, Rule 8 brings closure to rule 6 and 7 on grounds of equity. It claims that an order under rule 6
and 7 will only be passed if:

•The applicant applies for the order after the institution of the suit.
•The applicant provides notice of the application to the parties involved in the suit.
•The other parties of the suit have been given a fair chance to argue against the interim order.
•However, the rule is subject to the exception that if the hearing would cause delay leading to the loss of
the objective of the suit.

4. Order 39, Rule 9 talks in relation to an instance if land paying revenue is the subject matter of the suit.
It speaks about if an individual neglects paying his government revenue or the rent to his proprietor,
then the court may order the sale of the land or tenure, as the case may be, to any party interested in
buying that said land or tenure. The proceeds from the sale can be used to compensate the defaults in
the payment of the rent. Furthermore, the party who was interested in buying the property, by the
decree of the court, can be compensated by the defaulter.
The summary suit is given under order XXXVII (37) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is used in cases where the
defendant has no defence and applies to limited subject matters.

The object behind the summary suit is:

1. To Ensure An Expeditious Hearing

2. To Prevent Unreasonable Delay By The Defendant

3. To Ensure the Defendant Doesn’t Have a Frivolous Defence

4. To Assist Expeditious Disposal of The Suit

In the case of Navinchandra v. Bachubhai , the Gujarat High Court opined that the purpose of enacting summary

suits is to boost the confidence in commercial cases that their money claims would be expeditiously decided and

their claims will not remain pending for years. The object of the summary suit is to aid commercial transactions by a

swift redressal mechanism.

Summary suits can be instituted in Courts of Small Causes, City Civil Courts, High Courts, and any court notified by
the High Court. Order XXXVII Rule 1 Sub-rule 2 provides classes of suits where it can be instituted.

1. Bills Of Exchange

2. Hundies

3. Promissory Notes

4. Suit Where The Plaintiff Seeks Only To Recover A Debt

What is the procedure for a summary suit?

Rules 2 and 3 of the Code provide the procedure of summary suits. After the summons has been issued to the
defendant, he is not entitled to defend the summary suit unless he makes an appearance. If the defendant defaults,
the plaintiff will be entitled to an ex parte decree. If the defendant appears, he must apply for leave to defend within
10 days from the date of service of summons upon him.

Rule 4: Power to set aside decree

The court has the authority to set aside the ex-parte decree entered in summary litigation under Rule 4 of Order 37. If it is
fair to the court, the court may set aside the decree, give a stay of execution, or give any other permit to the defendant to
attend to the summons and defend the claim.

Order XXXVII Rule 7 provides that procedure in summary suits shall be the same as the procedure in ordinary suits.

The distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit

In summary suits, the defendant will be given a chance to defend himself if leave is granted. In an ordinary suit, the
defendant is entitled to defend himself without the grant of leave. The principle of res judicata does not apply
to summary suits. In case of non-appearance of defendant, a decree is passed in favor of plaintiff easily whereas in
ordinary suits multiple summonses are served and then an ex parte order is passed.

What constitutes no defence?

In the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd v. Hubtown Ltd [2016], the Supreme Court laid down conditions when
leave to defend must be granted. The judge has to ensure that justice is being done on the factual matrix of the case.
Unconditional leave is granted in cases where the defendant presents a substantial defence. The vexatious defence
would result in refusal to grant leave. The court stated that if the defendant shows he has a fair or reasonable
defence, though not a good defence, the plaintiff will not be entitled to judgment.

In the case of Precision Steel & Engg. Works v. Niranjan Deva [1983], the Supreme Court held that mere
disclosure of facts does not amount to substantial defence. The substantial defense has to be adduced from
the facts and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

To sum up everything, summary suits are a unique solution to help prevent unreasonable obstructions by the
defendant. Summary suits are beneficial to commercial businesses as the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment if
the defendant doesn’t have a substantial defense. Order XXXVII ensures that the defendant does not prolong the
litigation.
 ➢ Suits against minors: Order 32 Rule 1 to 5

Under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, A minor is a person who has not attained the age of 18
years and in the case of a minor of whose person or property a guardian has been appointed by a court, or whose
property is under a court of wards, a person who has not attained the age of 21 years.."

(b) Nature and scope Order 32 prescribes the procedure of suits to which minors or persons of unsound mind are
parties.

(c) Object

Order 32 has been specially enacted to protect the interests of minors, persons of unsound mind and to ensure
that they are represented in suits or proceedings by persons who are qualified to act as such. Thus the law will, as a
general principle, treat all acts of an infant which are for his benefit on the same footing as those of an adult, but
will not permit him to do anything prejudicial to his own interests.

(d) Suits by minors: Rules 1 to 2-A

Every suit by a minor should be instituted in his name through his guardian or next friend. If it is not done, the
plaint will be taken off the file. Where such minor is a plaintiff, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, order his
guardian or next friend, either on the application of the defendant or suomotu, for reasons to be recorded, to
furnish security for costs of the defendant. This provision seeks to discourage vexatious litigation by guardians or
next friends of minors.

(e) Suits against minors: Rule 3

Where a suit is instituted against a minor, the court should appoint a guardian ad litem to defend the suit. Such
appointment should continue throughout all the proceedings including an appeal or revision and in execution of a
decree unless it is terminated by retirement, removal or death of such guardian.

(j) Decree against minors: Rule 3-A

A decree passed against a minor without appointment of next friend or guardian is null and void.

In Ram Chandra v. Man Singh it was held that a decree passed against a minor or a lunatic without appointment of
a guardian is a nullity and void, not merely voidable.

(f) Who may be appointed as guardian or next friend?: Rule 4

Any person who has attained majority and is of sound mind, may act as a guardian or next friend, provided his
interest is not adverse to that of the minor, who is not the opposite party in the suit and who gives consent in
writing to act as a guardian or next friend. In the absence of a fit and willing person to act as a guardian, the court
may appoint any of its officers to be such guardian."

However, in certain cases it may be allowed for the guardian and the minor to have common interest in the suit. As
in the case of Ranganathan Chettiar v. Perrkarriappa Chettiar where the mother was allowed to bring a suit
concerning certain properties to be inherited by her and her minor son which had been wrongfully claimed by the
brother of the deceased husband.

(g) Powers and duties of guardian or next friend. Rules 5

No guardian or a next friend can, without the leave of the court, receive any amount or movable property on behalf
of a minor by way of compromise, nor enter into any agreement or compromise on his behalf in the suit. An
application for leave of the court should be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend or guardian, and if the
minor is represented by a pleader, with the certificate of the pleader that such compromise is, in his opinion, for
the benefit of the minor.

Conclusion:
Order XXXII is another example of exemplary legal framework which is part of a larger code and process of
litigation that has been operating since the inception of the Code in 1908. The rules under the order have also been
amended from time to time to ensure that relevance is maintained.

Situations such as fraud, collusion and adverse interest have been considered. The judicial opinion as to negligence
of guardian have changed over time and is an interesting field where there is more scope to expand minors rights.
However, Order XXXII is quite complete in its treatment of the legal problem on how to ensure fair representation of
minors and persons of unsound mind.
Order 33 provides for filing of suits by indigent persons. It enables persons who are too

poor to pay court institute suits without payment of requisite court fees.

Order 33 Rule 1

A person is an "indigent person"

(i) if he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint
in such suit; or
(ii) where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees.

In both the cases, the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of
the suit should be excluded. Any property acquired by the applicant after the presentation of the application
for permission to sue as an indigent person and the decisions thereon should also be taken into consideration
for deciding the question whether the applicant is an indigent person.

In A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways, the court held that “Access to justice cannot be denied to an
individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee.”

Inquiry: Rule 1-A

In the first instance, an inquiry into the means of the applicant should be made by the Chief Ministerial Officer
of the court. The court may adopt the report submitted by such officer or may itself make an inquiry.

Contents of application: Rule 2

As per Rule 2 of Order XXXIII, the application must include the particulars similar to what is mentioned in the
plaint and all movable or immovable properties of the indigent person/applicant along with its estimated
value.

Rule 3 Appearance

The indigent person/applicant shall himself in person present the application before the court. In case, such a
person is exempted from appearing in the court, an authorized agent may present the application on his
behalf. In certain circumstances where there are two or more plaintiffs, the application can be presented by
any of them.

Rule 4 Institution of the suit

The suit begins as soon as the application to sue as an indigent person is duly presented before the court.
Subsequently, the indigent person/applicant is examined by the court.

Rejection of application: Rule 5

The court will reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person in the following cases:

(i) Where the application is not framed and presented in the prescribed manner, or
(ii) Where the applicant is not an indigent person; or
(iii) Where the applicant has, within two months before the presentation of the application, disposed of
any property fraudulently or in order to get permission to sue as an indigent per son; or where there
is no cause of action; or
(iv) Where the suit appears to be barred by law, or
(v) Where any other person has entered into an agreement with the applicant to finance costs of the
litigation
Rule 6 notice

It provides that the court is required to issue a notice to both the opposite party and the Government pleader.
Following which a day is fixed on which evidence is received. On such a day, the applicant presents in the form
of proof about his indigency. The opposite party or the Government Pleader can present their evidence
opposing the applicant’s indigency.

Rule 7 procedure

provides for the procedure to be followed at hearing of the application. The court shall examine the witnesses
(if any), produced by both the parties and hear arguments on the application or evidence (if any) admitted by
the court. Subsequently, the court will either allow the application or reject it.

Where permission is granted?: Rules 8 to 9-A

Where an application to sue as a indigent person is granted, it shall be deemed to be a plaint in the suit and
shall proceed in the ordinary manner, except that the plaintiff will not have to pay court fees or process fees.
The court may assign a pleader to an indigent person if he is not represented by a pleader. The Central
Government or the State Government may make provisions for rendering free legal aid and services to
indigent persons to prosecute their cases. A defendant can also plead set-off or counterclaim as an indigent
person.

The Kerala High Court in R. Jayaraja Menon v. Dr. Rajakrishnan And Anr., In case a plaintiff ceases to be an
indigent person, the court shall compel him to pay the court fee that he would have paid if he had not

been allowed to sue as an indigent person. It is so plainly a part of an order under Rule 9 of Code directing the
plaintiff to pay the court fee that he would have paid if he had not been allowed to file as an indigent person
from the outset.

Conclusion
It has been observed that Order XXXIII, permits the destitute, impoverished, and downtrodden, who meet the
criteria of an indigent person as provided by Order XXXIII, to seek justice by exempting them from paying the
required Court fees. Order XXXIII further authorizes such poor people to file a suit in their own name. The
court at the outset itself while deciding the application must take into account the persons having sufficient
means and out rightly reject them to sue as indigents. The permission to file suit as indigent persons must be
carefully given to those who face financial constraints and lack basic resources as access to justice can
sometimes also be in the form of injustice.