Ad- interim injuction and interim order and Ex parte interim injuction.
Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or
set aside in appeal. Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.
Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.
Rule 3 Order xxxix requires the applicant to issue a notice to the opposite party before an injunction is
granted. Though the court has the power to grant an exparte injunction without issuing a notice.
The Principle Governing Grant Of AD Interim Injunction:
Grant of an interim relief in regard to the nature and extent thereof depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case as no strait-jacket formula can be laid down.There may be a situation
wherein the defendant/respondent may use the suit property in such a manner that the situation
becomes irretrievable. In such a fact situation, interim relief should be granted (vide M. Gurudas &
Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275; and Shridevi & Anr. vs. Muralidhar & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC
721. In Damodar Valley Corporation vs Haripada Das And Ors. (AIR 1978 Cal 489, 82 CWN 1093, 1979
(39) FLR 180) held that The principle governing grant of ad interim injunction appears to be as
follows :-- (i) It is not necessary for grant of ad interim injunction on a balance of convenience that
the plaintiff should succeed in establishing a prima facie case or a probability that he would be
successful at the trial of the action. (ii) It is also no part of court's function at that stage of the
litigation to resolve conflicts on evidence on affidavits as to facts on which the claims of either party
may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult question of law which call for detailed argument and
mature consideration which is reserved for the trial. All that is necessary at that stage on the
evidence on affidavits, is that the court should be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious,
in other words there is a serious question to be tried. (iii) On such satisfaction, the court will consider
whether the plaintiff, if he succeeds, would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for
the loss if the defendant continued to do what was sought to be injuncted. If damages recoverable in
law is an adequate remedy and the defendant is in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory
order should be normally granted, however strong the plaintiff's claim appears to be at that stage.
(iv) If damages are not an adequate remedy to the plaintiff in event of his success at the trial the
court will consider if the defendant would be adequately compensated if he succeeds in his case, by
reason of the plaintiff's undertaking for damages for the loss caused by reason of the injunction. If
such damages are adequate remedy and the plaintiff is in a financial position to pay them, an
interlocutory injunction should not be refused. In Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2004 SC
1975, this Court considered a case where the courts below had refused the grant of interim relief.
While dealing with the appeal, the Court observed that ordinarily in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Art.136 of the Constitution, this Court does not interfere with the orders of interim nature passed by
the High Court. However, this rule of discretion followed in practice is by way of just self-imposed
restriction. An irreparable injury which forcibly tilts the balance in favour of the applicant, may
persuade the Court even to grant an interim relief though it may amount to granting the final relief
itself. The Court held as under:- “The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that
withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice,
resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not
be able to vindicate the cause of justice.”
EX- Parte INJUNCTION
The normal rule is that temporary injunction cannot be granted except after notice of the
application for temporary injunction to the opposite party. It is only where the Court finds that
the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, that it can grant it ex
parte.
The law permits granting exparte mandatory injunction under Rule 13 of Order 39 CPC and
the Court is required to record and mention specific circumstances due to which it was
necessary to grant mandatory interim injunction and give a finding that the prima facie cause
of a higher standard and the Plaintiff had a strong .
