Calcutta HC Summarises Law Governing Exercise Of Judicial Discretion For Grant Of Interlocutory Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC

The Calcutta High Court on Friday summarised the tests and principles that govern the exercise of judicial discretion in respect of grant of interlocutory injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 thereof, during pendency of suit proceedings. It further clarified that at the stage of deciding an application for interlocutory injunction, Court is not required to go into the merits of the case in detail.A Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed, "In exercise of such discretion, tests to be applied are i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, ii) whether balance of convenience and inconvenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff and iii) whether plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if his prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed." The bench explained each of the tests in detail. As regards the first test of the plaintiffs making out of a prima facie case in its favour, the Court clarified that such "prima facie case" was not to be confused with "prima facie title". The sole consideration before the Court for determining the existence of a prima facie case in the favour of the plaintiff was whether the the plaintiff raised any substantial question of law which necessitated investigation by the Court and a subsequent decision on merits. The Court held: "'Prima facie case' is not to be confused with 'prima facie title'. To decide the question as to whether plaintiff has prima facie case in his favour, Court shall first see whether plaintiff has raised any substantial question which needs investigation and decision on merits, i.e., whether he has raised some question to go into the trial. Court may consider probability of his success in the trial and the comparative strength of the cases of the respective parties before it. The Court may also ascertain as to whether the suit shall fail on technical ground but it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove his case to the hilt and if a fair question is raised for determination, it should be taken that a prima facie case has been established." With respect to the secondary test of balance of convenience, the Court was required to be convinced that a denial of the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiff would cause to the plaintiff an inconvenience which would exceed, in all events, any inconvenience which would have been caused to the defendant if the latter was restrained by the Court. It held: "Plaintiff must establish that his inconvenience, in the event the relief of temporary injunction is denied to him will, in all events, exceed that of the defendant in case he is restrained." For satisfaction of the third and final test or "irreparable injury', the plaintiff is required to demonstrate before the Court that the denial of interlocutory injunction would cause to the plaintiff an injury so substantial that it cannot be adequately remedied or compensated by damages, noting further that at the stage of deciding an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the Court was not required to go into the merits of the case in detail. The Court held: "The term 'irreparable injury' means substantial injury which cannot be adequately remedied or compensated by way of damages and the Court shall consider whether protection is necessary from the species of injuries known as 'irreparable' before his legal right can be established. Court shall consider whether the mischief or inconvenience likely to arise from withholding injunction will be greater than which is likely to arise if granted. At this stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the case in detail." The Court was hearing an appeal against an order of a lower court rejecting an application seeking interim injunctive reliefs under the above provisions. The said application was filed in respect of steps taken by the respondent no. 1 to create third party interest in the premises which formed the subject matter of a suit which was filed by the appellant herein and the instant respondent no. 2 for specific performance of contract against the instant respondent no. 1. The said suit was filed along with the said application under under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 CPC. The respondent no. 1 intended to create third party interest in the property by entering into an agreement for sale to sale out the said property in favour of two third parties. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 contended that the main suit was bound to fail on account of technical defects and further challenged the joinder of a second plaintiff in the said suit proceedings on the basis that there was no privity of contract between the respondent no. 1 and the said second plaintiff. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 further...

Calcutta HC Summarises Law Governing Exercise Of Judicial Discretion For Grant Of Interlocutory Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC

SAMRIDDHA SEN

Tags