What is an injunction? what are the various kinds of it? When it can be granted?

Normally, the case lasts for a very long time and if the case is related with the property, then it becomes necessary to keep the property intact till the final disposal of the suit. If the conditions are charged by either of the parties, then it may cause irreparable loss to other party. Under this situation, the court passes an order to maintain the status quo. This order is injunction.

What is an injunction?

Different definitions of injunction have been given by different jurists:
According to Halsbury: Injunction is such judicial proceedings whereby the order is passed and given to any party for doing or not doing any act.

According to Barmi Dictionary:
Injunction is such order by which any person is prevented from interfering in the right of another or prevented from threatening to interfere in the right of another.

In State of Rajasthan Vs Randheer Singh (A.I.R. 1972, Rajasthan 241), the High Court of Rajasthan while defining injunction has said that the injunction is such specific order of the court which is issued to:
prevent such wrongful act which has been commenced or to prevent the threatening to commence such act.

Thus injunction is such order of the court which is issued by it, at any stage of the case, to maintain the status quo of the disputed property till the final disposal of the case or till further orders.

Types of injunction:

The injunctions are of four types:

1. Temporary injunction:

   Temporary injunction means such order issued by the court to maintain the status quo of the property till the final disposal of the case. The effect of such injunction remains till the final disposal of the case or till further orders. The main objective of this is to provide security, protection and preservation of the property (Mohammad Hafiz Khan Vs Najiban Bibi, 1973, JLJ 114)
   
   The specific injunction mentioned in Civil Procedure Code 1908, means this injunction.
    

2. Perpetual injunction:

   It is issued at the finalisation of suit by means of a decree and its effect remains forever.
    

3. Prohibitory injunction:

   It is such type of injunction by which the third party is prevented from doing any act i.e. the order is passed as not to do any act. For example, to prevent from doing any construction work, illegal possession and selling any property.
    

4. Mandatory injunction:

   It is the fourth type of injunction. It is such a type of injunction whereby an order is issued to any party to do a particular act in a particular way.

When an injunction can be issued?

Under Rule 1, Oder 39 of Civil Procedure Code 1908, those circumstances have been mentioned under which injunction can be issued. When in any suit, it is proved by any affidavit or otherwise that:

1. the possibility exists for the disputed property to be destroyed, damaged or transferred; or
2. the defendant threatens or intends to remove or consume his property with the intention of committing fraud; or
3. the defendant threatens the plaintiff to dispossers or damage his property.

Under the above conditions, the court can issue temporary injunction to be effective till the finalization of the case or till further orders to prevent the property from:

1. being destroyed
2. being damaged
3. from being sold
4. from being removed
5. from being changed
6. from dispossession
7. from being transferred elsewhere etc.

Example:
In a suit for recovery of money, where the court decided that defendant threatens to remove or consume the property to defeat the execution of the decree, then the court can issue injunction (M/S Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation V/s M/s Engineering Sales, Corporation, A.I.R. 2001, Rajasthan 331).

Similarly, injunction can be issued to prevent publication of defamatory matter in a newspaper (Hari Shankar V/s Kailash Narayan, A.I.R. 1982, Madhya Pradesh 47).

Injunction can be issued to prevent musance and any act which creates obstacle in peaceful use and consumption of property (Shamsher Singh Vs Rustam, A.I.R. 1988 Rajasthan 188).

Principles of Injunction:

There are three principles of temporary injunction:

1. Prima facie case;
2. Irreparable loss; and
3. Balance of convenience.

In Nagrao Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust A.I.R. 2001, Bombay 402, the Bombay High Court has decided that for issueing injunction, the compliance of all the three conditions as above is necessary. The same opinion was expressed in C.J. International Hotels Ltd. Vs N.D.M.C (A.I.R. 2001, Delhi 435).

1. Prima facie case:
   The first principle of issuing injunction is whether there is a prima facie case which justifies such injunction. Prima facie case means that the dispute is bonafide and there is possibility of success in favour of the plaintiff.
   
   In Vimala Devi Vs Jang Bahadur A.I.R. 1977, Rajasthan 196, the High Court of Rajasthan has decided that for temporary injunction, there should be a prima facie case. It means the possibility of getting remedy by the plaintiff.
    
2. Irreparable loss:
   The second principle of issueing injunction is the irreparable loss to plaintiff. Irreparable loss means such loss which may be caused to the plaintiff if injunction is not issued. It is not possible to evaluate such loss in money.
   
   It can be said also that if injunction is not issued, then the plaintiff can be deprived of his rights for ever.
    
3. Balance of Convenience:
   The third principle of issueing injunction is balance of convenience. It means if the injunction is not issued, then there will be more inconvenience to the plaintiff relative to defendant. The court has to take into account the balance of convenience. If the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff, then injunction cannot be issued in his favour.

In this regard, Ushaben Naveen Chandra Tridevi Vs Bhagya Lakshmi Chitra Mandir (A.I.R.1978, Gujarat 13) is a quotable case. In this, injunction was desired on this ground that the film 'Jai Santoshi Maa' hurts the religious feelings of hindus, therefore, its demonstration should be stopped. But the court did not find anything as such. The court found balance of convenience in favour of demonstration and refused to grant injunction.

In Prem Kumar Ghai Vs Dr. Veer Han Garg, A.I.R. 2005, Punjab and Haryana 193, it has been said that so long as balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant, the temporary injunction of demonstration and refused to grant injunction.

In Kusum Gupta Vs Sarala Devi (A.I.R. 1988, Allahabad 154), it has been said that if any of three principles is not complied with, the injunction should not b e issued.