How Senior Advocates Argue a Temporary Interim Injunction | Complete Indian Litigation Guide (2026)
EduLaw EditorialAdvocate PlaybookThe definitive courtroom guide on how senior advocates argue a temporary interim injunction in India under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, ex parte relief, landmark judgments & checklists. Updated June 2026.
Home › Litigation Playbook › Temporary Interim Injunction FILE No. CIV / INJ / 2026 — BRIEF How Senior Advocates Argue a Temporary Interim Injunction The Complete Courtroom Guide for Indian Lawyers — Updated June 2026 🕑 Reading time: ~34 min 📅 Last updated: 20 June 2026 ⚖ Order XXXIX CPC 📜 Specific Relief Act, 1963 🏛 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 SECTION 02 · THE STAKES Why Injunction Hearings Win Cases Before Trial Begins Let me tell you something the seniors learn in their first decade and the juniors learn the hard way: most civil litigation in India is effectively decided at the interim stage, not at trial. A suit may take eight, ten, sometimes fifteen years to reach final arguments. But the temporary injunction is argued in the first week — and whoever holds that order holds the ground for the next decade. The party who secures status quo holds possession, holds the trademark, holds the construction site, holds the bank account. The party who loses the injunction spends years litigating from a position of weakness, and very often simply settles. That is the brutal commercial reality. The interim order is the case. The order you obtain on the first motion will be enforced for years. Argue every interim injunction as if it were the final hearing — because for most practical purposes, it is. Where the interim order quietly decides everything Property dispute — An injunction restraining sale or transfer freezes the property. By the time the suit is decided, third-party rights, market value and possession have all crystallised around whoever held the order. Construction dispute — Once a builder raises five floors, no court eagerly orders demolition. Stop construction at the foundation stage and you have effectively won. Let it rise and you are litigating against a fait accompli. Commercial dispute — An injunction restraining invocation of a bank guarantee, termination of a distributorship, or enforcement of a restrictive covenant can keep a business alive — or kill it overnight. Trademark dispute — The mark that is restrained at the interim stage rarely re-enters the market. Goodwill does not wait for the trial to conclude. Partnership dispute — An injunction over operation of accounts or admission of new partners can decide who controls the firm long before dissolution is decreed. Family property dispute — An order against alienation of ancestral property preserves the corpus; without it, by the time partition is decreed there may be nothing left to partition. The litigation timeline — and where the war is actually fought Day 0 — Filing Plaint + Order 39 Rule 1/2 application + affidavit of urgency. Sometimes the case is won or lost on this single bundle. Day 0–3 — Ex parte hearing The decisive 20 minutes. Court considers ad-interim relief under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3. Week 2–8 — Reply & arguments Defendant files Order 39 Rule 4 application to vacate. The three tests are fully argued. Month 2–6 — Interim order The order that governs the next several years is passed. Year 1+ — Appeal (Order 43 Rule 1(r)) The losing side appeals — but appellate courts rarely disturb a discretionary order ( Wander v. Antox ). Year 8–15 — Trial & decree By now the dispute has often settled on the basis of who held the interim order. SECTION 03 · THE LAW The Legal Foundation Before you argue, you must own the provisions cold — not paraphrased, but in their exact terms. A judge will test you on the language. Here is the statutory architecture. Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC — When temporary injunction may be granted Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise — (a) that any property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party, 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; or (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute — 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, as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC — Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, 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. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC — Notice; and the ex parte proviso The Court shall, in all cases, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay . Where the Court grants an injunction without notice, it shall record the reasons for its opinion, and require the applicant to deliver to the opposite party (or send by registered post) a copy of the application, affidavit and plaint, and to file an affidavit of such delivery on the day of the order or the day immediately following. Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC — Disposal within thirty days Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC — Vacation / variation of injunction Any order for an injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside by the Court on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. Notably, where an order has been obtained by knowingly making a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular, and the injunction was granted without giving notice, the Court shall vacate the injunction — unless, for reasons recorded, it considers it not necessary so to do. Section 37, Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Temporary and perpetual injunctions (1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. Section 37 SRA is the substantive source of the power; Order 39 CPC is the procedural engine. Always cite both. A junior who cites only Order 39 and forgets Section 37 reveals the gap in his reading within the first minute. Sections 38 & 41 SRA — where relevant. Section 38 governs when a perpetual injunction is granted (breach of obligation, invasion of property right, where the defendant is trustee, where standard for ascertaining actual damage does not exist, etc.) — relevant because the prayer in your suit must be a maintainable perpetual injunction before you can seek a temporary one to protect it. Section 41 lists the bars: an injunction cannot be granted to restrain judicial proceedings, to prevent a breach of contract not specifically enforceable, where an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, or where the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. If your relief falls within Section 41, no temporary injunction can save it — check this first. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — the urgency carve-out (Section 12A) A suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff has first exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation . The corollary, settled by the Supreme Court ( Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers , 2022), is that where you genuinely seek urgent interim relief, the suit may be instituted directly — but the urgency must be real and demonstrable, not a device to bypass mediation. Statutory flowchart — does interim relief lie? ① Is the final relief a maintainable injunction (S.38 SRA) and not barred (S.41 SRA)? → if barred, stop . ↓ ② Is it a commercial dispute? → if yes, S.12A: is there genuine urgency? If no urgency → mediate first. ↓ ③ File suit + Order 39 R.1/R.2 application + affidavit (S.37 SRA). ↓ ④ Is notice impossible without defeating the object? → if yes, ex parte under proviso to R.3 (record reasons). ↓ ⑤ Court applies the three tests: prima facie · balance of convenience · irreparable injury . ↓ ⑥ Order until disposal / further orders → appealable under Order 43 R.1(r). SECTION 04 · THE TRIPOD The Three Tests Every Judge Applies These three tests are not optional and they are not alternatives. They are cumulative. The locus classicus is Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , where the Supreme Court restated that a temporary injunction rests on three concurrent conditions. Tap each pillar to open the senior advocate's working note. 01 Prima Facie Case A serious question to be tried — a triable case, not a certain one. tap to expand ▾ What it means: the material shows a real, substantial, triable issue and a probability of being entitled to the relief — not a bare assertion. What it does NOT mean: you need not prove the case to the hilt. The court does not decide title at the interim stage. Common mistake: arguing the whole suit on merits and inviting the court to "decide" — judges resist pre-judging. Illustration: a registered sale deed + mutation in the plaintiff's name establishes a strong prima facie case of title in a possession suit. 02 Balance of Convenience Greater inconvenience/injury if relief is refused than if it is granted. tap to expand ▾ What it means: the comparative mischief or inconvenience to the applicant if relief is refused outweighs that to the respondent if it is granted ( Gujarat Bottling v. Coca Cola ). What it does NOT mean: it is not a sympathy test. The court weighs consequences, not hardship stories. Common mistake: ignoring the status quo. Courts lean to preserving the existing state of things. Illustration: stopping a half-built structure causes the builder loss; allowing it causes irreversible alteration to disputed land — balance tilts to status quo. 03 Irreparable Injury Injury that money cannot adequately compensate. tap to expand ▾ What it means: harm that is not capable of being adequately remedied in damages — loss of unique property, goodwill, trade secrets, possession. What it does NOT mean: "irreparable" does not mean total or limitless; it means damages are an inadequate or uncertain remedy. Common mistake: claiming irreparable injury where the loss is purely monetary and easily quantified — courts refuse. Illustration: demolition of a heritage structure or dilution of a brand = irreparable; recovery of a fixed sum of money = reparable. The three tests are a tripod. Knock out any one leg and the whole application falls. A prima facie case alone is not enough — that is the express holding in Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792. SECTION 05 · BUILDING THE CASE How Senior Advocates Build a Prima Facie Case A prima facie case is not built by adjectives. It is built by documents the court can hold in its hand. The senior advocate's craft is knowing exactly which line of which document wins the morning. Below is a working brief — tap each highlighted clause to see what a senior actually marks and why. Document review module — a possession suit brief 1. SALE DEED dated 14.03.2018 "…the Vendor doth hereby grant, convey and transfer absolutely unto the Purchaser, Sri R. Menon, the property bearing Plot No. 42 ★ This is the operative conveyancing clause. A senior marks it first — it is the root of title. Registered + stamped = strong prima facie title. together with vacant possession delivered on the date of execution… vacant possession delivered on the date of execution ★ Delivery of possession recital — couples title with possession. This is what defeats the defendant's "we are in possession" argument. " 2. REVENUE RECORD / Mutation Entry No. 1187 " Khatedar: R. Menon. Basis of entry: Registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.2018. ★ Mutation does not confer title, but corroborates it and shows the State's record aligns with your client. Mark it to show continuity and bona fides. " 3. ADMISSION in Defendant's reply notice dated 02.08.2024 " We do not dispute that the Sale Deed dated 14.03.2018 was executed; our case is only that it stands subsequently cancelled. ★ GOLD. An admission of execution shifts the entire burden. A senior leads with the opponent's own admission — nothing is more persuasive to a judge than the other side conceding your foundation. " 4. EMAIL dated 11.09.2024 " …we intend to commence demolition and re-development of Plot 42 next week. ★ The 'danger' / threat document. This proves the imminence under Order 39 R.1(c) and your urgency. Without a threat document, your urgency is mere apprehension. " 5. AGREEMENT TO SELL (Defendant → Third Party) dated 20.09.2024 " …the Owner agrees to sell Plot 42 to the Second Party for ₹2.4 crore, possession within 30 days. ★ Proof of threatened alienation — engages Order 39 R.1(a). Also shows third-party rights are about to be created, strengthening 'irreparable injury' and urgency. " Notice the sequence a senior actually argues in: admission first, then title, then the threat document. You open with the opponent's concession, establish your root, and close with imminent danger. The judge has decided in your favour before you reach the law. SECTION 06 · WEIGHING How Senior Advocates Argue Balance of Convenience Balance of convenience is the comparison of the comparative mischief — the inconvenience the applicant will suffer if relief is refused, against the inconvenience the respondent will suffer if it is granted ( Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545 ). The senior never argues it abstractly. He puts the two futures side by side and lets the contrast do the work. Before / after comparison — construction dispute Question If injunction GRANTED If injunction REFUSED What happens to the land? Stays as it is — fully reversible Multi-storey structure rises — irreversible Who can be compensated? Builder claims delay damages — quantifiable Plaintiff's land altered — not quantifiable Third-party rights? None created during suit Flat-buyers induced — innocent third parties Status quo? Preserved Destroyed The risk matrix a senior carries to court Scenario Reversible if wrong? Court's instinct Restrain sale of immovable property Yes — title can be restored Lean towards granting Restrain ongoing construction No — structure cannot be un-built easily Lean towards status quo Restrain operation of bank account Partly — money is fungible Cautious; prefers conditions/security Restrain use of trademark No — goodwill once lost is irrecoverable Lean towards protecting the mark Decision tree — where balance tilts Is there an existing, peaceful status quo ? → Yes → court leans to preserving it (your job: prove you ask only to freeze , not to change ). Will granting relief create third-party prejudice ? → Yes → balance shifts against you; address it head-on. Is the respondent's loss purely monetary & quantifiable ? → Yes → balance tilts to you (he can be compensated; you cannot). Is the applicant's loss irreversible ? → Yes → balance tilts strongly to you. The single most powerful sentence in a balance-of-convenience argument: "My Lord, I ask the Court to do nothing — only to keep things exactly as they are until the suit is heard. It is the other side that seeks to change the position irreversibly." Status quo is the senior's home ground. SECTION 07 · THE DECISIVE LEG How Senior Advocates Prove Irreparable Injury This is the leg juniors fumble most. Irreparable injury does not mean huge injury. It means injury that cannot be adequately compensated in money. The entire enquiry reduces to one question — and a senior frames the whole argument around it. Can money truly compensate this injury? Answer honestly for your facts before you stand up. The court will. NO — money can't YES — money can Irreparable injury is made out. Press it hard — this is your strongest leg. Examples: loss of unique immovable property, demolition, dispossession, dilution of goodwill, disclosure of trade secrets, destruction of a family corpus. Argue: "No decree at the end of this suit can put my client back where he stood this morning." Caution — you may lose this leg. If the loss is a fixed, ascertainable sum, the court will say damages are an adequate remedy and refuse the injunction. Either find the non-monetary dimension (reputation, continuity, irreversibility) or be ready to offer security and seek conditional relief instead. Category test — where injury is irreparable vs reparable Category Typically irreparable? Why Immovable property (unique) YES Every parcel of land is treated as unique; damages inadequate Goodwill / reputation YES Once eroded, cannot be precisely valued or restored Trade secrets / confidential data YES Disclosure is irreversible — the secret is gone forever Possession of property YES Dispossession alters the status quo irreversibly Demolition of structure YES A building, once demolished, cannot be restored Family / ancestral property corpus YES Alienation defeats the very subject-matter of partition Recovery of a fixed debt NO Precisely quantifiable; damages with interest suffice A senior never says "irreparable loss" and sits down. He shows the irreversibility: "By the next date, the flat will be sold, the buyer will be in possession, the registration done — and no order of this Court can undo it." Concrete irreversibility beats the word "irreparable" every time. SECTION 08 · THE BENCH'S MIND The Psychology of an Injunction Hearing You are not arguing to a statute. You are arguing to a human being who must, in twenty minutes, take a risk on incomplete material. Understand what is actually going through the judge's mind and you will pitch the whole argument differently. What judges are actually worried about. Not who is ultimately right — that is for trial. The judge is worried about one thing: "If I am wrong, which side can I put back to where they were?" The judge wants the reversible option. Show him that granting your relief is the safe, reversible choice and you have aligned with his deepest instinct. Why urgency matters. An injunction is an emergency remedy. If there is no emergency, there is no reason to short-circuit the trial. Establish the threat is imminent — next week, not next year. Why delay kills injunctions. Equity aids the vigilant. If you sat on your rights for months, the judge reasons that you can wait for trial too. Unexplained delay is the most common silent killer of interim relief. Why conduct matters. An injunction is discretionary and equitable. He who seeks equity must do equity and come with clean hands. Suppression, sharp practice, or your own breach will sink an otherwise strong case. Why exaggeration hurts credibility. Overstate one fact and the judge distrusts all your facts. A senior understates and lets the documents over-deliver. Credibility, once dented at the interim stage, costs you the case. Argue to the judge's fear, not to your client's anger. The decisive line is always: "Grant the order and nothing is lost that cannot be restored; refuse it and something is lost forever." SECTION 09 · THE EMERGENCY REMEDY Ex Parte Injunctions — A Deep Dive An ex parte injunction is the most powerful — and most dangerous — weapon in interim practice. It is granted under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC without hearing the other side. The court guards it jealously, and so should you. The leading caution is Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161 , where the Supreme Court held that ex parte injunctions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that the court must record reasons for proceeding ex parte. Requirements — the four gates ① Object would be defeated by delay — notice itself would let the defendant complete the very act (sell, demolish, remove). This is the statutory threshold. ② Reasons recorded in writing — the court must record why it is proceeding without notice ( Shiv Kumar Chadha ). ③ Rule 3 compliance — applicant must serve copy of application, affidavit and plaint on the opposite party and file affidavit of such service that day or the next. ④ Rule 3A endeavour — the application must be endeavoured to be disposed of within 30 days. The duty of full and frank disclosure Because the other side is absent, the applicant carries a heightened duty of full and frank disclosure. You must place even those facts that hurt you. Under Order 39 Rule 4 , an ex parte injunction obtained by knowingly making a false or misleading statement on a material particular shall be vacated. Suppression at the ex parte stage is not a technicality — it is the surest way to lose an order you had already won. Risks & consequences Risk Consequence Non-compliance with Rule 3 (no service) Order liable to be discharged on that ground alone Suppression / misleading statement Mandatory vacation under Rule 4; loss of credibility No reasons recorded by court Order vulnerable on appeal ( Shiv Kumar Chadha ) Weak urgency Court declines ex parte and issues notice instead The court's approach — flow Application for ex parte relief → Is the urgency genuine & would notice defeat the object? → NO → issue notice, list for hearing (no ex parte order). YES → record reasons → grant ad-interim relief → direct Rule 3 compliance → endeavour disposal in 30 days (Rule 3A). Ask for the minimum ex parte relief that protects you — usually just status quo, not the full prayer. An over-broad ex parte order invites an immediate Rule 4 application and an annoyed judge. Take the smallest order that prevents the irreversible. SECTION 10 · THE PERFORMANCE How Senior Advocates Structure the Actual Argument Here is the skeleton a senior carries in his head — six movements, in order. Tap each to open the annotated courtroom script. Notice it never opens with law. It opens with danger. 1 · The Opening — start with danger + "My Lord, by the time this matter is next listed, the property in dispute may be demolished and sold to innocent third parties. I appear for the plaintiff and I seek only one thing this morning — that the position be frozen exactly as it stands today." Open with the irreversible event, in one sentence. The judge must feel the urgency before he hears a single section. 2 · Prima Facie Case — the documents + "The defendant in his own reply admits execution of the registered sale deed of 2018 — that admission is at page 47. Title and possession both vest in my client, corroborated by the mutation entry at page 52. There is plainly a serious triable issue." Lead with the admission, then the root of title. Point to page numbers — never make the judge search. 3 · Balance of Convenience — the contrast + "If the Court freezes the position, the defendant loses nothing he cannot recover — at worst a short delay, fully compensable. If the Court declines, the property is altered and sold beyond recall. The balance lies wholly in preserving the status quo." Always frame as 'do nothing' vs 'irreversible change'. Status quo is your safe harbour. 4 · Irreparable Injury — the one question + "No decree at the end of this suit can restore a demolished structure or undo a sale to a bona fide purchaser. Money is no answer to my client. The injury, once caused, is beyond repair." Show irreversibility concretely; do not merely chant 'irreparable'. 5 · The Prayer — ask for the enforceable + "I therefore pray that the defendant, his agents and assigns be restrained from alienating, transferring, demolishing or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until disposal of the suit." Frame the relief in enforceable, specific terms — courts will not pass vague or unworkable orders. 6 · Fallback — the status quo request + "If the Court is not inclined to grant the full relief at this stage, I would pray, at the very least, for an order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and title until the next date." Always keep a minimum fallback. A senior never leaves the podium with nothing — he secures the smallest protective order rather than risk a flat refusal. The order of the six movements is deliberate: danger → documents → contrast → irreversibility → precise prayer → fallback. The law is woven in, never recited up front. A judge persuaded of the danger reads the law generously. SECTION 11 · COURT-READY The Interim Injunction Preparation Checklist Tick each item before you walk into court. Tap to mark done. 🖨 PRINT CHECKLIST ✓ Plaint discloses a maintainable cause of action and a perpetual injunction prayer (S.38 SRA) ✓ Relief is not barred by Section 41 SRA — checked each clause ✓ Order 39 R.1/R.2 application filed with a properly sworn affidavit ✓ Root-of-title document (sale deed / lease / agreement) on record & paginated ✓ Possession documents (tax receipts, electricity bills, mutation) ready ✓ Any admission by the opposite party located and bookmarked ✓ "Threat / danger" document proving imminence (notice, email, agreement to sell) ✓ Delay, if any, fully explained in the affidavit ✓ Full & frank disclosure — even adverse facts pleaded (esp. for ex parte) ✓ Ex parte: reasons-for-urgency paragraph drafted for the court to adopt ✓ Ex parte: Rule 3 service set + affidavit of service drafted ✓ Commercial suit: S.12A urgency justification ready (or mediation done) ✓ Prayer drafted in specific, enforceable terms — no vague language ✓ Fallback status-quo prayer prepared ✓ Three authorities ready: Dalpat Kumar, Gujarat Bottling, Best Sellers ✓ One-line opening on the irreversible danger memorised SECTION 12 · THE GRAVEYARD Common Mistakes That Destroy Injunction Applications Most injunctions are lost not because the law was against the applicant, but because of avoidable, self-inflicted errors. Here are the ones a senior watches for. Opening with the law, not the danger. The judge tunes out before the urgency lands. Arguing all three tests as alternatives. They are cumulative; conceding any one sinks the application ( Best Sellers ). Claiming irreparable injury where the loss is purely monetary. Court holds damages adequate and refuses. Unexplained delay. Sitting on rights for months destroys the urgency narrative. Suppression of material facts. Fatal at the ex parte stage — mandatory vacation under Rule 4. Seeking a mandatory injunction at the interim stage casually. Courts grant these only in the rarest, clearest cases. Vague, unenforceable prayer. "Restrain from doing anything illegal" is no order at all. Over-broad ex parte relief. Invites an instant Rule 4 application and judicial irritation. Ignoring third-party rights. Failing to address innocent purchasers/flat-buyers loses balance of convenience. Forgetting Section 37 SRA. Citing only Order 39 reveals an incomplete reading. Missing the Section 41 SRA bar. Seeking to restrain a proceeding or a non-enforceable contract — dead on arrival. No "threat" document. Apprehension without proof of imminent injury is mere speculation. Pre-judging / arguing the whole suit on merits. Judges resist deciding title at the interim stage. Exaggerating facts. One overstatement and the bench distrusts the entire case. Not coming with clean hands. The applicant's own breach or sharp practice defeats equity. Ignoring status quo. Asking the court to change the position rather than freeze it. Defective / unsworn affidavit. Order 39 R.1 needs proof by affidavit — a vague verification is not enough. Non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3. Failing to serve the application/affidavit/plaint discharges the ex parte order. Bypassing Section 12A mediation without genuine urgency. The commercial suit itself becomes vulnerable. Citing too many judgments. Burying the three decisive cases under twenty marginal ones — the bench loses the thread. No fallback prayer. Going all-or-nothing and walking away with nothing. Quoting facts the documents don't support. When the bench checks the page and the line isn't there, the case collapses. SECTION 13 · THE AUTHORITIES Landmark Judgments Six judgments do most of the heavy lifting in injunction practice. Know these cold; you can leave the rest in the brief. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 · Supreme Court · Bench: K. Ramaswamy & M.M. Punchhi, JJ. FACTS Dispute over an interim injunction; the High Court had interfered with the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting/refusing temporary injunction. ISSUE What are the governing considerations for grant of a temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC? RATIO The court restated that grant of temporary injunction requires a prima facie case , that the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant, and that irreparable injury not compensable in money must be shown. "Prima facie case" means a serious question to be tried, not a case proved to the hilt. Courtroom takeaway: This is your anchor citation for the three tests. Open the legal portion of every injunction argument with it. Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 · Supreme Court · Bench: M.N. Venkatachaliah & S.C. Agrawal, JJ. FACTS A passing-off action over the mark in which interim injunction was sought; the appellate court had reversed the trial court's discretionary order. ISSUE To what extent may an appellate court interfere with the discretionary grant or refusal of an interim injunction? RATIO An interlocutory injunction is a matter of judicial discretion of the court of first instance. The appellate court will not interfere merely because it would have reached a different conclusion ; it intervenes only if the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or by ignoring settled principles. Courtroom takeaway: If you have the trial court order, use Wander to resist appellate interference. If you lost below, you know the high bar you must clear on appeal. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545 · Supreme Court · Bench: J.S. Verma & S.B. Majmudar, JJ. FACTS Coca Cola sought to enforce a negative/restrictive covenant in a bottling agreement against GBC, which had come under a competitor's control. ISSUE Principles governing grant of interim injunction to enforce a negative covenant, and the relevance of the parties' conduct. RATIO Reaffirmed the three tests and emphasised that interim injunction is an equitable, discretionary relief where the conduct of the party seeking it is highly relevant — he who seeks equity must do equity. Balance of convenience is a comparison of comparative mischief or inconvenience. Courtroom takeaway: Cite for balance of convenience and for the proposition that the applicant's conduct and clean hands are central to discretionary relief. Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 · Supreme Court · Bench: three-Judge Bench (N.P. Singh, J., speaking) FACTS Challenges to demolition orders of the MCD; the question of civil court jurisdiction and the practice of granting ex parte injunctions arose. ISSUE When should courts grant ex parte injunctions, and what is the duty of the court while doing so? RATIO Ex parte injunctions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances ; the court must record reasons for proceeding ex parte (Order 39 Rule 3 proviso), and must make an endeavour to dispose of the application expeditiously. Courts should be circumspect in granting injunctions affecting statutory authorities. Courtroom takeaway: The governing authority on ex parte relief. When you seek it, hand up the reasons paragraph; when you resist it, point to absence of recorded reasons. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 · Supreme Court · Bench: K. Ramaswamy & B.L. Hansaria, JJ. FACTS An ex parte injunction had been granted restraining a mutual fund from proceeding with its public issue/allotment. ISSUE The principles and restraint to be observed before granting ex parte interim injunctions. RATIO The court laid down the factors a court must weigh before granting an ex parte injunction — including whether irreparable mischief would result, the conduct and bona fides of the applicant, the need to record reasons, and the requirement that ex parte relief be granted with great caution and only when absolutely necessary. Courtroom takeaway: Pair with Shiv Kumar Chadha as the twin authorities on the caution required before any ex parte order — invaluable both when seeking and resisting. Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 792 · Supreme Court · Bench: R.M. Lodha & H.L. Gokhale, JJ. FACTS Dispute arising from an exclusive agency/distribution arrangement in which temporary injunction was sought. ISSUE Whether the existence of a prima facie case alone entitles a party to a temporary injunction. RATIO A prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to a temporary injunction. The court must also be satisfied that the balance of convenience is in the applicant's favour and that irreparable injury would result if relief is refused. All three must concur. Courtroom takeaway: The perfect rebuttal when your opponent rests on a strong prima facie case alone. "My Lord, prima facie case is the beginning, not the end — Best Sellers makes that clear." SECTION 14 · WAR GAMES Real Courtroom Scenarios Theory ends here. These are the patterns you will actually face, with the winning line, the losing line, and where the court is likely to land. Scenario 1 — Property sale injunction Approach What it looks like Winning strategy Lead with registered sale deed + the defendant's agreement to sell to a third party as the "danger" document; seek a narrow order restraining alienation/third-party rights only. Losing strategy Argue full title on merits, ignore delay, seek an over-broad order restraining "all dealings"; no proof of imminent sale. Court's likely view Inclined to freeze alienation (reversible, preserves status quo) provided urgency and a prima facie title are shown. Scenario 2 — Builder construction injunction Approach What it looks like Winning strategy Move at the foundation stage; stress irreversibility of construction and innocent flat-buyers; seek to stop further construction, not demolition. Losing strategy Approach after five floors are up; seek demolition by interim order; ignore third-party purchasers. Court's likely view Early intervention favoured; once the structure has risen, courts hesitate and may protect third-party rights and order accounts/undertakings instead. Scenario 3 — Trademark injunction Approach What it looks like Winning strategy Establish prior user and likelihood of confusion; stress goodwill is irreparable; move promptly on discovering infringement. Losing strategy Delay after knowledge of the rival mark; rely only on registration without prior use; weak evidence of confusion. Court's likely view Sympathetic to prompt prior user (goodwill = irreparable, per Wander logic); delay and acquiescence are fatal. Scenario 4 — Partnership dispute Approach What it looks like Winning strategy Seek a targeted order — e.g., joint operation of accounts or status quo on assets — to preserve the firm pending dissolution/accounts. Losing strategy Seek to wholly exclude a partner from management by interim order; over-reach into running the business. Court's likely view Reluctant to take over management; prefers preservationary orders (joint signatories, status quo) over exclusion. Scenario 5 — Family property dispute Approach What it looks like Winning strategy Show coparcenary/joint character and a threatened alienation; seek restraint on alienation to preserve the corpus for partition. Losing strategy Assert exclusive ownership of admittedly joint property; ignore the rights of other co-sharers; delay after knowledge of sale. Court's likely view Protective of the corpus where joint character is prima facie shown; an order against alienation is the classic, reversible relief. SECTION 15 · THE PRIVATE BRIEF Senior Advocate's Personal Notes Ten rules I would write on the inside cover of every junior's brief. Read them before every injunction hearing. Never start with law. Start with danger. The judge must feel what is about to be lost. Never argue every fact. Argue the decisive fact. One admission beats ten arguments. Never seek impossible relief. Seek enforceable relief. Vague prayers get vague refusals. Frame everything as "freeze the position," never "change the position." Status quo is home ground. Show irreversibility; do not merely chant "irreparable." Concrete beats conclusory. Come with clean hands and disclose what hurts you. Credibility is the only asset that compounds. Explain every day of delay before the judge asks. Unexplained delay is silent defeat. Carry three cases, not thirty. Dalpat Kumar, Gujarat Bottling, Best Sellers will carry the morning. Always keep a fallback prayer for status quo. Never leave the podium with nothing. Ask for the smallest order that prevents the irreversible. Restraint earns the bench's trust. SECTION 16 · ONE PAGE Ultimate Courtroom Cheat Sheet Save this. Print it. Glance at it outside the courtroom. 🖨 PRINT CHEAT SHEET The Power S.37 SRA (substance) + Order 39 R.1 & R.2 CPC (procedure). Ex parte: proviso to R.3. Vacation: R.4. Appeal: O.43 R.1(r). The Three Tests 1 · Prima facie case (serious triable issue) · 2 · Balance of convenience · 3 · Irreparable injury. All three, cumulatively. (Dalpat Kumar) The One Question Can money truly compensate? If NO → irreparable injury made out. If YES → expect refusal. Ex Parte Gates Object defeated by delay · reasons recorded · R.3 service done · R.3A disposal in 30 days. Full disclosure or lose it (R.4). Argument Order Danger → documents → contrast → irreversibility → precise prayer → status-quo fallback. Three Cases Dalpat Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 719 · Gujarat Bottling (1995) 5 SCC 545 · Best Sellers (2012) 6 SCC 792. Killers Delay · suppression · monetary loss dressed as irreparable · over-broad / vague prayer · S.41 bar. Golden Line "Grant the order and nothing is lost that cannot be restored; refuse it and something is lost forever." FAQ · UPDATED JUNE 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What is a temporary interim injunction? An order under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC, read with Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, restraining a party from doing a particular act (or preserving property) during the pendency of a suit and until further orders. It is interlocutory and continues only till the suit's disposal or further orders. What is the difference between "temporary" and "interim" injunction? In Indian practice the terms are used interchangeably. Both refer to interlocutory relief during the suit. The substantive distinction is between a temporary injunction (during the suit, Order 39) and a perpetual injunction (granted by the final decree, Section 38 SRA). What are the three tests for a temporary injunction? Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury — restated in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719. All three must concur. Is a prima facie case alone enough? No. Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792 holds that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to a temporary injunction; balance of convenience and irreparable injury must also be satisfied. What does "prima facie case" actually mean? A seri