Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
An advocate seeking a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must satisfy the court that the plaintiff has a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, and that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused. The application typically arises in a suit for declaration of title where the plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may alienate the property or raise construction during the pendency of the suit, thereby altering its character or creating third-party rights.
Courts approach an injunction application by weighing the strength of the plaintiff's claim to title against the hardship the defendant would suffer if restrained. The listed cases do not directly address Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and therefore no specific holdings on the three-pronged test can be attributed to them. An advocate must rely on the settled principles that a mere assertion of title is insufficient without credible documentary evidence, and that an injunction against a party already in possession requires a higher threshold of proof.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.
2019 INSC 1325Supreme Court · 2019cited 2,078 times
1. Bail determination involves balancing nature of offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement; guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt — only prima facie or reasonable ground for belief…
- 2
Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
2020 INSC 631Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,767 times
The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's orders granting interim maintenance; the husband was directed to pay entire arrears within 12 weeks and to continue complying during pendency of s. 125 CrPC proceedings…
- 3
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
2020 INSC 620Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,346 times
Statement recorded under s. 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible as substantive evidence; officers under s. 53 NDPS Act are "police officers" under s. 25 Evidence Act; confessions made to them are barred; conviction based…
- 4
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2012 INSC 386Supreme Court · 2012cited 1,093 times
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when an offence under the Act is…
- 5
Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) Represented through Legal Representatives v. the State of Karnataka & Ors.
2018 INSC 969Supreme Court · 2018cited 972 times
Per Lokur J (majority, for himself and Nazeer J): The significant date is the date of the order of acquittal, not the date of the alleged offence; the victim's cause of action arises only on acquittal; an acquittal…
- 6
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (govt. of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
2022 INSC 480Supreme Court · 2022cited 919 times
The burden of proving that there is no existing debt or liability is to be discharged at trial and cannot be adjudicated by the quashing Court at the pre-trial stage. The legal presumption under s. 139 NI Act — that a…
- 7
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
1994INSC112Supreme Court · 1994cited 765 times
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the U.P. Amendment Act, finding them to be within Parliament's legislative competence. While upholding most provisions, the Court read into…
- 8
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.
1978 INSC 223Supreme Court · 1979cited 609 times
The Supreme Court upheld the discharge, affirming the principles governing section 227 Cr.P.C. The Judge at the charge-framing stage must sift the evidence to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed. In this…
- 9
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Etc v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. Etc
1988INSC36Supreme Court · 1988cited 542 times
The Court held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence, and whether it is expedient in the interest of…
- 10
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Etc v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr
1986INSC66Supreme Court · 1986cited 495 times
(i) The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation (CIWTC) is an instrumentality or agency of the State and thus "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The corporate veil must be seen through…
- 11
Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. v. Narasaiah
2001 INSC 118Supreme Court · 2001cited 465 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that after the introduction of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a court may accept a certified copy of a registered document as evidence of the transaction…
- 12
Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc
1985INSC151Supreme Court · 1985cited 449 times
1. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is wide and far-reaching, and it includes the right to livelihood. Depriving a person of their means of livelihood is tantamount to depriving them of…
Frequently asked questions
What must a plaintiff establish to get a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?
The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case in their favour, demonstrate that the balance of convenience lies in granting the injunction, and prove that they would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in money if the injunction is refused. These three elements are conjunctive and the court weighs them together based on the facts of each case.
Can a court grant an injunction restraining a defendant from raising construction on the suit property?
Yes, a court may restrain construction if the plaintiff shows a strong prima facie case of title and that the construction would alter the nature of the property or cause irreparable harm. However, if the defendant is in settled possession, the court will carefully balance the equities before granting such a restraint.
Is an injunction available against a defendant who is already in possession of the property?
An injunction against a party in possession is granted only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff's title is clearly established and the defendant's possession is shown to be wrongful or recent. Courts are generally reluctant to disturb possession through an interim order and will require compelling evidence of a prima facie case.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on civil procedure & property
- Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell Immovable Property
- Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
- Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession: Ingredients, Hostile Plea and Use as a Sword
- Eviction of Tenant on Ground of Bona Fide Requirement
- Land Acquisition Compensation and Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- Scope of Review Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC