If Elaborate Hearing Is Needed On Ad-Interim Injunction, Court Should Decide Main Injunction Plea Instead: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once pleadings are completed, and affidavits and relevant material has already come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting time to decide the ad-interim injunction. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that if an elaborate hearing is required...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once pleadings are completed, and affidavits and relevant material has already come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting time to decide the ad-interim injunction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that if an elaborate hearing is required for considering the prayer for ad-interim protection, the Court might be in a position to finally decide the application for temporary injunction itself which would advance the object of expeditious justice and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of interlocutory proceedings.
“…the very object underlying an ad interim injunction is to grant immediate and short-lived protection in exceptional circumstances until the application for temporary injunction can be finally heard. Once notice has been served upon the opposite party, pleadings have been completed, replies have been filed and affidavits and relevant material have come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting considerable judicial time to an elaborate adjudication of the ad interim prayer,” the Court said.
For context, the Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the District Judge that had refused ad-interim protection while the application for temporary injunction was still pending adjudication.
While refusing to touch upon the merits of the controversy to avoid influencing the decision in the pending application for temporary injunction, the Court observed that an ad-interim order was not intended to substitute or eclipse the adjudication of the substantive applications for temporary injunctions.
“The temporary injunction itself is intended to operate only during the pendency of the suit, whereas an ad interim order is of an even more transitory character, surviving only till the application for temporary injunction is finally decided. The distinction in their respective nature and purpose ought to be borne in mind while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction.”
In this background, the Court disposed of the appeal, without expressing any opinion on its merits, and directed the trial judge to decide the pending application for temporary injunction on or before July 20, 2026.
Title: M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267