 the court wherein that order has been violated. These few aspects keep on boggling the minds of a common man, including the lawyers as such. And as to whether the orders could be violated with impunity, that is one of the key issues. As to whether who has violated, can he go step three? Or there are certain challenges, checks, and balances in respect of these all aspects. And as those who have been connected with the channel of Beyond Law CLC or Justice KG Sankaran's YouTube channel, we all know that we have been taking sessions on the court of civil procedure coupled with limitation rights. And keeping in view those series which we have started taking up, this session of today's of temporary injunctions and violation of their off, what are the different aspects, and what is the legal remedy? As I say that once there is a violation, there are remedies available. But what is the best way to guide that particular person who feels that he has been on the wrong side, despite the fact that there is an order in his favor? These all aspects will be discussed in the today's session. And there will be question and answer session also. And those who have missed former sessions, the earlier sessions of Justice KG Sankaran, or for that matter, all sessions of Beyond Law CLC, they can share, like, and subscribe to the channel, as well as of Justice KG Sankaran's YouTube channel, to have the pop-up as and when it's there. And the comments would also help us to understand as to what aspects we can take forward, and we can request, sir, or any other speaker on different aspects of law to understand those issues. Without taking much time, I would request, sir, who's a former Judge Justice KG Sankaran, former Judge from Kerala High Court, and who had been closely associated with the Kerala Judicial Academy. And his passion for teaching, we all speak for volume in its own style of teaching. Audio, sir. Thank you, Mr. Vikas, and thank all the viewers, all the participants. Namaste. Today, we have to deal with the subject of temporary injunctions and violations. It is a day-to-day affair. Those who go to the civil court, you have to face. In almost every suit with respect to immoral property, an application for temporary injunction will be there, or violation of injunction, or for interim mandatory injunction. All these things are common. Therefore, the subject which is selected is very relevant for the practitioners in the subordinate courts, particularly. And therefore, today, we will discuss those aspects. What is the purpose of granting injunction? Administration of justice. And it is said that the court processes all the powers as are necessary to do complete justice to the parties. And if there is no specific provision for dealing with a particular aspect, section 151 is there, which is inherent power, which is a reserve power. When there is a specific provision, section 151 cannot be exercised, otherwise section 151 can be exercised wherever it is necessary. And interim orders are granted in suits in order to aid the main relief. And the main object of granting injunction, temporary injunction is preservation of the property in discipline, keeping the status quo of the property intact till the rights, legal rights of the parties are determined and till the suit is disposed of. So that the status quo is not altered. Suppose an item of female property is the subject matter of dispute. And there are valuable trees. Or there are important big constructions. Pending suit, those trees are cut and removed. Or the buildings are pulled down. And thereby, the value of the property has been diminished. Then there is no purpose in contesting the suit. There is no purpose in prosecuting the suit. And it will become meaningless. The parties will have no faith in the system. Therefore, the court has got abundant powers to preserve the property, to preserve the status quo. And for that purpose to grant injunctions. And if there is a violation of injunction, the court has abundant powers to deal with those violations. And to punish the person who has violated accordingly. And the types of temporary injunction are prohibitory injunction, prohibiting a particular person from doing a particular act, mandatory injunction, commanding a party to undo some wrong or an injury, add-in-dream injunction. That is granted pending disposal of the application for temporary injunction. That is the difference between add-in-dream injunction and temporary injunction. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction is filed. And add-in-dream injunction is granted without hearing the opposite party. Urgent relief is required. And the court is satisfied that some urgent relief is required. Even without hearing the opposite party, the court has power to grant add-in-dream model of injunction, which can be varied, set aside, annulled, cancelled, et cetera. Can be confirmed also. And temporary injunction is then granted while disposing the application for temporary injunction, interlocktery application for temporary injunction, which normally will be alive till the disposal of the suit or till the time which the court fixes. And which are the relevant provisions? Section 37 of the specific relief act speaks of temporary and perpetual injunctions. It says, 37.1, 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 the suit and are regulated by the court of civil procedure. So civil procedure court regulates the procedure for it. Subsection 2 of Section 37 of the specific relief act says, a perpetual injunction can only be granted when it can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. The defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from assertion of a right or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the fee. Civil procedure court, which are the relevant provisions. The relevant provisions are Section 94, supplemental procedure. 94 says, in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the court may, if it is so prescribed, prescribed is defined in the CPC in Section 240, I think, prescribed by the rules, clause C of Section 94 says, that is, it has to be run in a continuation of this sentence in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The court may, if it is so prescribed, then see granted temporary injunction. And in case of disobedience, commit the person guilty thereof to the civil present and order that his property be attached and sold. And that provision is Order 39, Rule 2A, Rule 2, Capital A, Prescribed to 216 of the CPC, prescribed means prescribed by rules. The rules relating to the temporary injunctions are mainly rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. And the Law Commission in the 54th Law Commission report, clause C of Order 39, Rule 1 was not there till 1976. Please see Order 39. Rule 1, cases in which temporary injunctions may be granted. There are three clauses that clause C was not there before 1976. Based on the report of the Law Commission, the Parliament amended the CPC and inserted clause C by Act 104 of 1976. Now, what are the three clauses in Rule 1? Let us see. A, where in any suit it is proved by Affidavit or otherwise, that must be proved by Affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, it means other evidence. Usually, when an application for injunction is filed, along with it there will be an Affidavit. And the requirements which are necessary, unless that injunction is granted, what will happen, all those things irreparable injury, we will come to that in those aspects, all will be pleaded. Prime of ACKs, irreparable injury, banners of continence, all those things will be pleaded. And the court will ascertain whether it is necessary to grant temporary injunctions. And Rule 1 of Order 39, where in any suit it is proved by Affidavit or otherwise. Clause A, that any property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party. Please underline any party to the suit. Or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. Or B, that the defendant threatens, please underline the defendant threatens, or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. Threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. C, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff. Or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit. There in Clause C also it is the word defendant. In Clause A, wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit. So the offending act, the act complained of may be one indulgent done by any party to the suit. What does it mean? That an injunction, temporary injunction in the case of Clause A can be granted against the plaintiff as well. But in Clause B and Clause C, it is available only against the defendant. So in a suit for, in respect of an item of immoral property, a suit for injunction is fine. The plaintiff got a temporary order of injunction. Restrain the defendant forcibly and drink it to the property. Really the plaintiff is not in possession. The plaintiff has no title. He has filed the suit. He has got an injunction, no doubt. But his intention is under the cover of the temporary injunction to take advantage of the situation and to amass well so far as he can, either by cutting trees or doing something, some mischief. Thereby, he can damage the defendant, damage the property, and also he can gain something. In such a circumstance, after having got an injunction and under the cover of injunction, he is threatening to destroy or alter the nature of the property or to cut down trees or to cool down buildings. What can the defendant do? Should he file a separate suit? He need not. He can file an application for temporary injunction, even against the plaintiff, under which provision, only under rule 1 clause A. If clause A is attracted, injunction can be granted against the plaintiff as well. Now, what are the requirements of the court may by order granted temporary injunction to restrain such act, et cetera, et cetera? All these activities which are mentioned in rule 1 can be dealt with in the order. Then rule 2, 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, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not. The plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit and either before or after the judgment applied to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury combined or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind and an icing of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. Subsection to sub rule 2 says the court may by order grant such injunction on such terms as to the duration of injunction, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise as to the court in suit. Injunction is a remedy which is very powerful and injunction and deserving order of injunction if granted in favor of a court and against the rightful claimant of a court will cause great injury, irreparable injury to the defendant sometimes or the balance of convenience may be in favor of the defendant in which case the court will not grant injunction. Suppose the court grants an injunction and thereby damages caused to the defendant and add injury injunction was granted. Injunction was granted and it was without hearing the opposite side without hearing the defendant. What can be done? There are certain precautions. The decisions are uniform to the fact that before the court grants an injunction, the court must be satisfied with certain requirements and that satisfaction must be recorded. Otherwise, it is not a matter of routine to grant injunction because sometimes it may cause great damage to the opposite party. Sometimes the order of injunction may be taken advantage of by the plaintiff himself after getting it. All these situations may arise. And if an ad-in-prime order of injunction is granted, rule four enjoins that an order of injunction can be discharged or varied or set aside by the court on an application made there to by any party dissatisfied with that order. The court may do that. The court has abundant power and there is a proviso in 1976 amendment. If an application for temporary injunction or in the affidavit supporting such application as party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party. The court shall vacate the injunction unless for reasons recorded it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of justice. So ad-in-prime order can be granted and it will be based on the affidavit presented the pleadings in the case. The plaint and other documents produced along with the plaint no return statement, there is no appearance. So relying on the governments made by the plaint if the order is being granted and if some deliberate calculated wrong governments are made or the facts are not fully disclosed. The opposite side points out this. The court has power, the court will vacate it. Provided that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard the order shall not be discharged varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge or variation or setting aside has been necessitated by the change in the circumstances or unless the court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to a party. So in an order of temporary injunction is granted after hearing the opposite party. Normally it will not be vacated, varied or nullified unless there is a change of circumstance or unless the court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to the opposite party. Now certain precautions are provided not to misuse the order of temporary injunction or not to misuse the situation. That is contained in rule three. Before granting injunction go to direct notice to the opposite party. The court shall in all cases except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay before granting an injunction direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. So the court must be satisfied that if notice is given to the opposite party. It will cause delay, it will be defeated by the delay. If the government is that the defendant is going to count variable trees for crores or lakhs and the court issues only notice. What will happen if an order of injunction is fast nothing is going to happen? What is the order to the defendant? Don't cut trees, don't pull down structures, don't destroy, don't alter the nature of the problem. Normally such an order of injunction will not cause much produce to the opposite party. If it is not granted what will happen? It may happen that before communicating the order of injunction the offense the offending act apprehended may be done sometimes and the defendant cannot be brought to book or he cannot be punished his property cannot be attached because that order is not served not communicate even before the court communicates that order the offending act is done so that the whole purpose will be defeated if only notices issue in such cases the court may grant an add-in dream order provided that where it is then what is the proportion to be taken by the court? The court will record that if notice of the application is given that is why usually when an order of add-in dream order of injunction without notice to the other party is being granted the court will record I am satisfied that if notice is issued it will cause delay and it will not serve the purpose it will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff sometimes all these things will be returned to the order provided that where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice to the application to the opposite party the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that is a safeguard that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay and require the applicant what is the requirement after recording court must be satisfied that even without issuing notice to the opposite party it is necessary to grant an order of temporary injunction that satisfaction must be recorded court must also record its opinion that the object of granting the injunction will be defeated by the delay and after doing that then require the applicant who applied for injunction to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by registered post immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made a copy of the application for injunction together with a copy of the affidavit find and support of the application copy of the plane copies of documents on which the applicant relies and B to file on the day on which the injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day and affidavit stating that the copies are forced and have been so delivered for sale so this will take care of the situation after granting an order of injunction the person who obtained that order of injunction cannot keep on delaying matters he has to serve notice of the plane that supporting documents to the opposite party immediately by registered post it has to be sent and affidavit has to be filed before court on the same day or at least on the next day that these mandatory requirements of rule 3 have been complied with if it is not done the court will locate 3A court to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days that is another precaution that is provided that was also inserted by 1976 amendment that 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 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted and where it is unable so to go it shall record its reasons for such inability so it is an assurance given to the opposite party that you come if you have got an objection that will be heard and disposed of in 30 days even before that it can be done immediately it can be done power of the court cannot be questioned now then for the practical purposes what are the requirements what are the various conditions necessary these are all jake might loss therefore we have to see the various decisions of the supreme court at least some important decisions so supreme court it is necessary today it is not possible to deal with because there are thousands and thousands of decisions of the court supreme court and high courts therefore it is not practically possible to deal with all those cases so I will give some only some sample case sample only some sample I will put question and the answer what are the conditions to be satisfied for the grant of any temporary injunction of conditions to be satisfied what are the conditions to be satisfied power to grant that this is an equitable remedy and it is in the discretion of the court court has to exercise that discretion judiciously reasonably and on some legal principles the principles are one whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case even what is this prima facie case has been dealt with in various cases some decisions say that this is a stateable case there is a chance to succeed there is a case to go for trial all those states of meanings have been mentioned so the court must be satisfied then there is a prima facie case for trial then whether the plaintiff second condition whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prior for temporary injunction is granted is not granted irreparable injury aspect that either side if it is granted the it will cause irreparable injury to the defendant if it is not granted irreparable injury it will be caused to the plaintiff all those things next condition balance of convenience if it is in favor of the plaintiff is it in favor of the plaintiff all these things will be considered by the court and an order will be passed these are the three pillars or the triple test before granting an order of injunction temporary injunction what is prima facie case let us examine under different heads we will see court must be satisfied then there is a bona fide history raised by the applicant and that is an arguable case for trial which needs investigation and the decision on the merits and there is a probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief claimed by him on going through the plaintiff and the supporting documents the court is satisfied that the suit is almost frivolous or there is no stateable case there is no real case for trial and that there is no chance for the plaintiff to succeed it is not assessing it on the merits and saying that the plaintiff did not succeed the court may not say that it is an assessment of the situation with reference to all the documents which are available for the time being and to see whether there is a stateable case there is an arguable case there is a genuine case to go for trial and there is a genuine chance there is a chance for the plaintiff to get it on get a decree in his favor now please note a decision of the supreme a year 2010 supreme 2010 i am giving as i said only some sample decisions very very quite few samples a year 2010 supreme court 296 kashi mud samsthan kashi mud samsthan and another versus srimad srimad sudhindra thirtha swami and another sudhindra thirtha swami and another that is a dispute between the guru and sishya mainly that is among the gauda saraswada brahmins a sishya was selected he was a sishya he was the next swamiji and before that he did all sorts of mischiefs according to the other side and left the place he had illegally taken all the poja articles idols and all those things he went to various states disputes in various states in andhra pradesh kerala there were several litigations with respect to that in one of the cases this was considered what is that grand of in order to obtain the order of injunction the party has to show prima facie case to go for trial balance of convenience is his favor and irreparable loss or injury injunction is not grand all these things question of it was also this is important the question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party does not arise if the party fails to prove a prima facie case to go for trial probably this is for the first time the springboard has said so this question as such did not arise for consideration i think that is why this point has been noted in this decision three pillars triple test all these things right but if the plaintiff does not prove a prima facie case the other aspects of irreparable injury and balance of convenience need not be good or even if those ingredients are in favor of the plaintiff if there is no stateable case if there is no say prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff then number rejection cannot be granted paragraph 13 it is said but it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concern would not be material at all that is to say if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial it is not open to the court to grand injunction in his favor even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favor and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction is granted so even if those two limbs are true to the satisfaction of the court by the claim if he fails to prove the prima facie case aspect the court will not grant injunction temporary injunction in his favor this is what he said then next irreparable injury so you go to the commentaries you will get hundreds thousands of decisions hundreds of decisions on each aspect so I said I am giving only irreparable injury what is it an injury will be regarded as irreparable where there exists no specific or fixed pecuniary standards for measuring damages that is irreparable injury now then please see a decision AER 2002 Supreme Court 350 Balco employs union versus union of india and others AER 2002 Supreme Court 350 public projects normally the court will not grant an injunction restraining the public projects being commissioned and the injunction is granted to preserve the status quo please see AER 1990 Supreme Court 1990 Supreme Court 867 it is an equitable remedy injunction the conduct of the parties are relevant and if the court finds that the conduct of the parties makes it unreasonable to grant an injunction in favor of the party plenty of this conduct was such that he dissent titles himself from the grant of such injunction even the decree itself specifically fact provides that if we were the defendant invades the return such obligation 39 42 injunction when refused 41 contact the plaintiff plus I this is with respect to the final disposal but it is relevant when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to dissent title him to the assistance of the court an injunction cannot be granted even final so the conduct of the parties is very relevant suppression of material facts the court will not grant the equitable remedy of injunction now balance of convenience aspect court must be satisfied that the comparatively mischief mischief hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing the intention will be greater than which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it the court will balance the rights obligations the right the inconveniences the conveniences the benefits the merits demerits and all these things and a balancing process will go on apart from considering prima facie case and an arguable case and all those things balance of convenience aspect also will be considered by the court so it is a great task for the court to consider the application for example next is 1995 5 SCC 545 barrel citation AER 1995 Supreme Court 2372 Messers Gujarat bottling company limited and another versus Coca-Cola company under paragraph 5 0 50 I'll read a few sentences under order 39 of the Kodo Sul procedure jurisdiction of the court to interfere with an order of interloperatory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and therefore the court on being approached will apart from other considerations also look into the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame since the relief is wholly equitable in nature the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things compliant dog and that he was not unfair or inequitable his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking the relief his conduct should be fair and honest these considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under order 39 rule 1 or rule 2 of the CTC but also in respect to the party approaching the court for vacating add-in trim order of injunction order already granted in the bending suit or procedure so these tests are applicable in the case of a plaintiff where the court is asked to grant the relief to the plaintiff and on the part of the defendant when the defendant approaches the court to vacate or modify the order of injunction already granted these considerations will be taken into account by the court please next please see a year 1976 supreme court a year 1976 supreme court 2621 but municipal corporation of delhi versus surya's chandra jai purya and another surya's chandra jai purya and another 41 h of the specifically fact was taken no thought that an injunction which is a discretionary of equitable relief cannot be granted where an equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode or proceeding except in the case of breach of trust that will also be considered not only at the time of final trial but at the time of granting temporal injunction also 1993 SCC 33 mahadev savlaram shalke savlaram shalke and others versus purya municipal corporation prime of ACK's tribal issue and balance of convenience no injunction can be granted against the rightful owner in favor of a person in unlawful possession since it is an equitable relief an injunction cannot be granted against the rightful owner rightful person and in favor of a party who is not entitled to that situation that right next 1992 1 SCC 719 parallel citation AER 1993 superego 276 dalpat kumar and another versus praklas singh and others praklas singh and others principles are stated paragraph 6 there is a discussion the phrases prime of ACK's balance of convenience and recoverable loss are not rhetoric faces phrases for incantation but words of wit and elasticity to meet to meet myriad circumstance situations presented by man's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances but always is handled with sound exercise of divisional discretion to meet the ends of justice the facts are eloquent and speak for themselves it is well nigh impossible to find from the facts prime of ACK's imbalance of convenience etc etc that is paragraph 6 next question which we may consider we have seen order 39 rule 1 and 2 rules 1 and 2 apart from these things whether the court can exercise the inherent power under section 151 to grant temporary injunction is a question which arose consideration in several cases what will happen if there is no specific portion to deal with the situation rule 1 and 2 does not cover do not cover that then whether section 151 can be accessed or it is exhaustive so that the court cannot have that inherent power all these questions were considered elaborately in various decisions side side those decisions what is inherent power it is not confirmed of a power on the court it is recognizing the power of the 151 the wording itself makes it clear saving of inherent powers of inherent powers are there by the very constitution of the court it has got certain inherent powers those powers need not be stated need not be conferred the very fact that the court is constituted the court is invested with that jurisdiction with that power the wording is nothing in this court shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process this power is almost similar power is there under section 482 of the court of criminal procedure but that power is available only to the high court not to the subordinate courts whereas the power under section 151 the inherent power under section 151 is available to even the lowest court on the civil side therefore whenever a situation arises cpc contains various provisions various provisions are there to maintain the contingencies but still there may arise situations where it is not covered by any particular portion or the particular provisions which are covered for example striking off defence there are special two or three provisions for striking out the defence but there may arise situations apart from all these things the courts have held that even section 151 can be moved even to strike the defence likewise the question of granting temporary injunction also the court has done please see a year 1962 supreme court a year 1962 supreme court 527 manohar lal chopra versus rai bahadur rahu raja seth if it is so prescribed with that expression section 94 was considered if it is so prescribed it is in the in the incidence of the exercise of power of the court to issue temporary injunction that the provisions of section 94 of the court have their effect and in not taking away the right of the court to exercise its inherent power courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the process of order 39 cpc if the court is opinion that the interest of justice require the issue of such interim injunction circumstances not covered by order 39 court can issue injunction in its inherent jurisdiction discussion is in paragraph 18 24 and 25 and paragraph 18 discusses the various views by the various different different high courts two views there is difference of opinion between the high courts one view is that the court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the circumstance do not fall under the process of order 39 the other view is that a court can issue even exercising inherent jurisdiction then the supreme court says in paragraph 18 we are of the opinion that the latter view is correct and that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the process of order 39 cpc there is no such expression section 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by order 39 or by any rules made under the court it is well settled that the process of the court are not exhaustive or the simple reason that for the simple reason that the legislature is capable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them the effect of the expression that it is so prescribed was considered by the supreme court is only that when the rule prescribes the circumstances in which the temporary injunction can be issued ordinarily the court is not to use its inherent power to make the necessary orders in the interest of business but is merely to see whether the circumstance of the case bring in within the prescribed rule if the provisions of section 94 were not there in the court the court could still issue temporary injunctions but it could do that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction no party has a right to insist on the courts exercising their jurisdiction and the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction only when it considers absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to rule it is an incidence of the exercise of power of the court to issue temporary injunction that the process of section 94 of the court have their effect and not in taking away the right of the court to exercise its inherent is so eloquently love can be made by the supreme court and then in paragraph 26 27 28 all these discussions take place then in another decision of the kerala high court illar 2015 to kerala 15 to kerala 69 i was also a party i rolled with banjiri municipality banjiri versus am mohammad Ali the facts are very very interesting the municipality had issued contracts to various persons for doing civil contracts and admittedly amounts large amounts are due to the play either due to politics or due to positive offense whatever it is the municipality did not pay to the plaintiff the amounts due admittedly the work has been done by the plaintiff to satisfaction of the municipality but the bill amount has not been paid and instead they are avoiding contracts to several persons and making payments and that time the plaintiff approached the court and applied for an injunction restating the municipality from paying any amount to any other person in respect of any contract which was entered into after this date so on a first look anybody will be carried away by that prayer because money is due to the plaintiff you are not paying the money to the plaintiff you are avoiding other contracts and paying amounts to them subsequently is it just so anybody will have that feeling but the principle whether a statutory authority can be restrained from doing its statutory duties under the constitution various provisions have been mentioned and a discussion elaborate discussion that decision which provides that a statutory authority cannot be injuncted from exercising its statutory functions and duties source of power to grant interim relief 94 all those things are mentioned inherent power in addition to the court inherent power that is also mentioned if there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic they give rise to necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of that topic status quo party should not be allowed to alter the nature of the property etc all these things are also considered in that decision next a year 1983 supreme court 1272 1272 cotton corporation of india limited cotton corporation of india limited versus united industrial bank limited under those inherent powers it was considered cannot be invoked to nullify the provisions of section 41 b of the specific this also mentioned then another heading there is a prior in the suit main relief same main relief is asked for as an interim relief it is not uncommon main relief is asked for interim relief same thing sometimes it may be necessary suppose the main relief is for issuing a permanent private redemption restraining the defendant from entering possibly entering into the plaintiff's property the temporary injunction also may be the same by granting the temporary injunction order in such cases the court is not granting going to grant the main relief that is still the disposal of the suit or till such time as the court fixes then the court tries the suit and the court arrives at a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the perpetual injunction platform suit is dismissed temporary injunction also goes but there are certain other leaves which can be granted only at the final stage only after trial only after considering the respective rights and if it is granted at the interim stage it cannot be reversed in such cases the Supreme Court has held that the court cannot exercise that power as an interim relief please note a year 1952 Supreme Court page 12 1952 so constitution by the decision by the mh kanya cji first changes in paragraph six i will read the two or three sentences an interim relief can be granted only made of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding if the court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy over to the petitioners it might have proceeded to investigate the case on the merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioner succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to writ of mandamus etc etc but when the court declined to decide the rights of parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a suit it could not for the purpose of facilitating institution of such suit issue directions in the nature of temporary of course it was in a case of a red petition and then filing a suit is the proper only court holding but this victim has been laid down in respect of suits also in a suit or proceeding then 2003 6 acc 2003 6 acc 65 viral citation a or 2003 supreme court 2218 union of india and others versus moody lyft limited same point next topic heading can the defendant apply for a number redemption we have dealt with that the exception under order 39 answer is yes only under order 39 rule 1 plus please see a decision i l r 1995 3 kerala i l r 1995 3 kerala 6 1 5 by justice kitty thomas and justice k s vada both of them retired as judges was doing name of the case hamsa versus jor on a reading of the separation it is evident that the court can grant an injunction at the instance of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant that is clause a where in any suit it is proved by afloat or otherwise etc etc the conditions a clear distinction is made by the framers of the rules as between the situation clause a and the situation either clause b or clause c of rule 1 in respect to the former injunction can be granted whoever applied for the same whereas in respect to the latter no injection can be granted on the motion of a defendant is what is held this is a discussion paragraph 2 4 and 6 then order 39 rule 1 c is also discussed saving power under 151 is also discussed and it was also held that the defendant cannot move an application under order 39 rule 1 c which was introduced in 1976 that can be made only by the plaintiff against the defendant not by any party as in contra distinction to clause a which provides that any party may have the next heading is status code is a very very very stands on a slippery ground status orders are being passed by the court what is a status if the status quo is clear there is nothing wrong in passing in order of status but status quo according to the plaintiff may be one time one thing status quo according to the defendant may be another thing may be another thing so there may be dispute as to what is the status there is no material before the court to show what is the status in such cases before understanding the real scope of status code cannot grant such vague and indecisive orders is what the Supreme Court said that all the court says there may be some cases where the court commissioner may go visits the property files a report and sketch or plan and the position is very clear before what is the status code on the date of suit and if the court is satisfied and that is the status code there is nothing wrong in asking the parties to maintain that status code in the disposal industry on the other hand it is everything in a fluid state of affairs nobody knows what the status quo is court cannot grant please see this decision of the Supreme Court which one Supreme Court wants the courts on that 2006 3 SCC 312 2006 3 SCC 312 AAR citation AAR 2006 Supreme Court 1474 4 Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another versus Praveen Kumar Singh it was not appropriate for the appellate court to pass an order directing the parties to maintain the status code without indicating what the status code was and principles to be kept in view while passing such orders all discussed in paragraph 5 simply directing the parties to maintain the status code without indicating what the status code was is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of education is what the Supreme Court said then another decision by the Kerala High Court AAR 2006 Kerala 132 court can under its inherent power the name of the case Charul Noor Nallalam Gramapadhyay Charul Noor Nallalam Gramapadhyay versus Kathalath Devi the court can under its inherent power to direct a party who has gained an undue advantage by flouting the order of the court to restore status quo ante or to discourage the ill-gotten advantage obtained through breach of court's order court has that power inherent power paragraph 10 an interim order is liable to be respected by the parties to the same so long as such order is enforced even if the order is subsequently vacated following a decision to the Supreme Court in AAR 1997 Supreme Court 1240 after flagrantly violating flouting the interim injunction if a party feels with a sense of crime that he has overreached to the court order and that he can get away with that such party should be told that the arms of the court are long enough to catch him and mighty enough to undo the injustice done by him to the opposite party then interim mandatory injunction under that heading we will see what is interim mandatory injunction whether it can be mandatory injunction can be granted as an interim review I will give an example a file is wrote against me he says that he is in he has got titled and possession to property he also alleges that B is a neighboring property owner he intends to trespass he attempt made an attempt to trespass upon a portion of the previous property and to construct a combo go on an application for a temporary injunction was filed for granted an honorable temporary under the cover of temporary injunction the plaintiff encroached upon the defendant's land neighboring land and construct a combo whether the court has power to us demolition or the defendant does it whoever does it court has power after flagrantly flouting the interim order party cannot be allowed to go it to gain advantage of interim mandatory injunction a year 2006 supreme court 1474 parallel citation 2006 3 scc 312 kishore kumar kaitan and another kishore kumar kaitan and another versus praveen kumar 6 paragraph 6 an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted it is an order that is possessed past only in circumstances which are clear and prime of ac materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interest of justice demanded that the status quo and db restore 5 f in interim mandatory that is next is police aid police aid for delivery for doing something all those things police aid is asked for for executing the orders for implementing the orders for enforcing the orders to what extent it can be done whether it can be done by the police force by the executive so motto without an order of the court because they are also discharging functions learned order situation is to be made it whether they can do in respect of a suit or a proceeding which the supreme court said no without an order of the court please see 2019 10 scc 2019 10 scc 136 parallel citation ai r 2019 supreme court 5370 ohm pragas and another versus hamer singh and other facts are in paragraph 11 and the court held i i'll read only two sentences be that as it may we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the police with regard to the delivery of possession by resorting to a manner outside the procedure of the court using the court orders as an umbrella was wholly unbarred the executive authorities were completely unjustified in their over enthusiasm without asking for proper court orders regarding police assistance despite the fact that they are fully aware that possession was to be delivered in persons of a court order it's a very clearly stated by the supreme whether police assistance can be ordered yes it can be ordered no how in two kerala cases it was held ai r 1993 kerala 62 ai r 93 kerala 62 ambujaakshi and other versus vulitha kunjum vasu channa vulitha kunjum under section 151 court can order police assistance in appropriate cases and it was held in another case mohammad versus mohammad haji that is only ai r or i l r is not seen 86 1986 kerala a lot of times 86 kerala a lot of times 134 now we will go to order 39 room pa attachment is mentioned it's a mode to compel the opposite party to obey the order of intention it's not a punishment detention in civil prison is a mode of punishment there should be clear proof that the order to be obeyed was clear unambiguous and with full knowledge of its contents it was disobeyed unless knowledge of the order is proved the breach of the r of cannot be said to be will put order of injunction will take effect only when the order is communicated to the party the party should have true and correct knowledge of the injunction rule 2 a can be invoked only when the order is communicate it's a power vested in the court a great power and when it is denied when the plaintiff gets an order of temporary injunction and he alleges that it was violated by the defense you see there are various instances the plaintiff may say that the defendants are trying to cut open a pathway a road making a road through my property that is the plaintiff's property they may say an injunction the court will pass in a temporary injunction on violating that order where road is cut with the help of sorrow persons and an application is made to punish those persons under order 39 go to the other side says no no I have not done it then it is for the court to decide it on evidence evidence also can be let it let it in an effort though it is an interlocutor application because it is very the consequences are very serious a person is going to send to jail the maximum period is three months to a or his property is going to be attached that after that period if it is not obeyed that will be sold therefore very very serious consequences order 39 rule 2 a attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds the court may award such compensation as if things fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance if any to the party and I deserve these are all things powers are not lack a supreme court judgment 2007 supreme court 2000 volume 7 sec six nine five barrel citation a or 2000 suprico 3032 a vengada subhayan aidu versus yes chellipan and others yes chellipan and others party who secured such order cannot take advantage of without complying with the requisites of clause 8 b of rule 3 sending copy of the order etc etc that is considered the order does not if so factor become illegal merely because it was not restricted to the period under rule uh yes rule 2 a non-compliance of such a request on his part cannot be allowed to go without any consequence and to enable him to have only the advantage of the consequence of the party who secured it or not complying with the duties he is required to perform is that he cannot be allowed to take advantage of etc etc that comes under rule 3 rule 2 a another decision a year 1997 supreme court 1 2 4 0 1 2 4 0 p m baga b a g a s a r wala baga sarwala versus hr industries a person who disobeys an entry injection right by the court can be punished under rule 2 a even if it is found ultimately then the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this see an order of temporary injunction was passed later the suit is dismissed what will happen there is an allegation that the defendant violated an order of temporary injunction was passed against the defendant when for trial meanwhile an application was filed by the plaintee that the defendant violated the order of temporary injunction and did some misuse an application is filed under rule 2 a to punish him that application was considered along with the suit evidence was common it was taken and ultimately the suit is dismissed does it mean that the rule 2 a application becomes impractious answer is no does not become impractious even if ultimately it is formed that the plaintiff is not entitled to leave it is protecting the majesty of the court it is protecting the order passed by them otherwise nobody will have any faith in the system if an order is passed i violate the order let us see what happens on the merits no that's such an attitude cannot be even if the court has no jurisdiction and if he ultimately it is found by found that the court has no jurisdiction till then whatever orders passed by the court will survive and just be obeyed this is one such decision paragraph 28 a mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any dream orders long paragraph i am not reading but this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that violent force these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the court on the question so the question of jurisdiction is raised and the court finds that it had no jurisdiction it had passed an injury model that order was violated an application was made under rule 2 a for taking action and on the question of jurisdiction aspect the court finds that it had no jurisdiction but this violation the offending act was committed even before that finding it can be dealt with under rule 2 a that is an extreme case seeing that situation that is what is the purpose if a court passes an order parties are about to obey they can complain they can come they can complain against that order in appeal it is an appealable order order 39 rule 1 it is an order can be appealed against under order 33 order 43 rule 1 so without doing it or he has to be wait for that final result or if a question of jurisdiction is raised wait for it then do it it is not a license to disobey the order so the jurisdiction aspect the court will decide who will decide the question of jurisdiction that court itself and therefore if it is formed that it has no jurisdiction that does not mean that all these orders will go automatically orders will go no no doubt about it but if any violation has been made in the meanwhile that will be dealt with under rule 2 a because it is to preserve the system to majesty of the court is to be protected the parties must have faith in the system and the rights of parties will be decided by the court another decision ILR 2007 to Carol ILR 2007 to Carol 404 that was a decision by me see Arvindakshamanon and others see Arvindakshamanon and others versus Raghavanan so it was dismissed after trial is not a ground to hold that the party who violated the entry model should not be proceeded with under rule 2 so it was dismissed on merits still and then in a case where it was considered what will happen if an attachment of property is made and what is that purpose to compel a party to undo to obey the order suppose he has cut down valuable trees can it be undone no it cannot be undone compensation can be awarded all these things are discussed in that then whether the executing court has to be approached or whether the trial put itself there are two decisions of the Caroline put on that it is the trial court itself rule 2 a application has to be filed in the suit itself not the trial court itself not in executive court then what is the distinction between order 39 rule 2 a and order 21 rule 32 order 21 rule 32 can be equal only after a decrease past decrease past order 21 rule 32 provides for three categories of cases for specific performance for injunction decree for specific performance restitution of conjugal rights or injunction are dealt with under order order 31 rule 32 this attachment of property etc is their decree may be enforced the case of a decree for injunction by his detentions will present or by attachment of his property or by both and the attachment continues for a specified period what will happen all those things are discussed and there is an amendment in 2002 explanation was added for removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the expression the act required to be done covers privately as well as mandatory sub rule 5 provides that if the court directs an act which is required to be done and if it is not done by the other party who is ordered do it and the act required to be done may be done at the expense of that party and it can be even done as per the orders of the court by the other part or by an officer appointed by the court and the amount required from the opposite party expenses the court that is the act required to be done there was divergence of opinion between and different courts some of the courts taking the view that it applies only to mandatory injunction not to privately injunction degrees and it has been clarified which is a clarificatory amendment in order to do a rule 32 by an explanation act required to be done meets privately as well as mandatory so some of the courts have taken the view that the act required to be done speaks of a positive act therefore it speaks only of see mandatory injunction not privately it is made clear now it is a clarificatory amendment objects and reasons say so so that is a distinction can order 21 rule 32 can be invoked only after a decrease past whereas rule 2 rule 2 a of order 39 can be invoked when the locketry order is by now with this time is over so thank you very much I will just check out in the group we don't have any post as such yeah we have got a question what is the difference between an interlockery and interim applications are first let's take this question because it's further by applicator interlocketry and interim applications that is why the I said at the inception temporary injunction is granted is applied for along with the suit or otherwise and after hearing both parties it is granted or dismissed that is a temporary injunction order it is granted an application for temporary injunction is filed and without hearing the opposite party and add interim order is granted without hearing that part it is called interim yes add interim are the applications for maintenance appointment of commissioner attachment before judgments stay injunctions are to be considered as an interlockery or an interim applications I did not get that question are the applications for maintenance appointment of commissioner attachment before judgment stay injunctions to considered as interlockery or interim applications interlockery applications where interim orders can be passed they are interlockery applications I a this is one of the basic questions well some interim or interlockery order continue to remain alive even if the suit slash appeal stands dismissed no interlockery orders for such period as the court fixes or maximum till the disposal of the suit interim orders are those orders in the interlockery application which is granted with the add interim order without hearing the opposite party it can be variant reversed or set aside I know the other side comes and satisfies the court that it should not have been granted please explain the procedure in inducing evidence slash witnesses while deciding the interim application even some some applications require evidence some applications require evidence and those applications are for example rule 2 a of order 39 when serious allegations are made that application that an order for temporary injection has been violated it it is visited with serious consequences even punishment is provided so if it is denied the parties will get an opportunity to to to abuse evidence and most of such applications seriously conducted application contested applications will be taken up along with the trial so that entire evidence can be used and can be considered along with the suit and even if the suit is dismissed the person concerned can be punished for having violated the order of temporary injection that is done plus there are several applications under the code of civil procedure where evidence can be taken even an application for temporary injection evidence can be taken usually it is being done in the form of epidemics but rarely enough an application for temporary injection also oral evidence can be reduced nothing wrong even in a repetition oral evidence can be reduced I have seen such cases oral evidence was abused I have seen few such cases yes or so it is not impossible or an attachment is made attachment before judgment is made suit is pending and going by order 21 rule 58 that that is a procedure and that is a procedure in execution what is the question to be decided all the questions relating to right idland interest and what is provided in order 38 for attachment before judgment same procedure and it is said that the procedure for disposing of a claim or objection in respect of an attachment before judgment will be the same as that of an attachment made during execution therefore the procedure which is provided in order to do a rule 58 will apply while disposing of an application for lifting the order of attachment under order 38 as well so such applications also evidence may be that violation of injunction attachment before judgment garnishing proceedings that applies only in execution otherwise even in execution evidence can be taken so in appropriate cases evidence can be taken whether interlocutory or other yes what is the difference between injunction and attachment injunction is restraining a party from doing something which are provided in section 94 and order 13 and rule 1 and 2 attachment is restraining a party from doing alienating a property or otherwise dealing with the property or selling the property or say doing something with respect to a property what is the consequence section 64 of the CPC if an order of attachment is made any private alienation is void this is an interdict to a party say a suit is fired for money the defendant has only one property is going to sell that property it is during the pendency of the suit itself section 52 of the transfer property will not apply because the suit is not with respect to the property suit is a simple money suit and he has got only one property is going to sell it therefore the plaintiff may apply for an order of attachment before judgment and that attachment is an interdict to the same what is the consequence if an attachment is made section 64 CPC will apply and any private alienation or delivery subsequent to the attachment order will be invalid to the extent to which the attachment is ordered so if a decree is for payment of 10 lakhs property is worth one an order of attachment before judgment is passed what is the liability 10 lakhs to that extent the alienation will be void that is a difference yes remedy of moving application and the contempt of court act whether they can move simultaneously or what is the procedure there the one of the iron one supreme court judgment which says that there is a built-in provision under order 39 code 2a and therefore instead of resorting to that the contempt of court proceedings normally cannot be resolved even in the regular second appeal they say that don't move for the contempt move since it's a violation of order 30 you move maybe in the high court itself but you will have to move an application order 39 do rather than yes application under section 10 read with 12 they said that even article 215 of the constitution you will also not write analyze yes yeah and order 39 rule 4 the term that the party is referred to the applicant what does that mean order 39 rule 4 party on an application made there to buy any party dissatisfied with such all see we have seen under order 39 rule 1a that an injunction can be applied for by any party whether applied before and can be granted against any party so if an order is passed an interim order is passed injunction is passed and the opposite party whoever it is is agreed by that order if I apply for discharge variation setting aside on an application that is why any party is used though under order 39 rule 1 b and c only it can be granted against the defendant and such person can apply so here any person needs to be used otherwise it will not cover cross that is a reason why any person would also connote defendant yes then a party dissatisfied that an injunction can be granted against a party to the suit and that party is dissatisfied with that order he cannot apply for varying set aside another meaning is that only the party to the suit can apply not a stranger will rest you to get applied to interim applications no can be at interim injunction we also termed as an x party injunction add interim order of injunction can be said as x party yes it is also said so rest you to get applies means yes so an application is made and it was considered by the court elaborated and an order is passed later he files another application principles of rest you to get I will apply the court will not entertain successive order not that it is a final disposal final disposal till the disposal therefore the court will not entertain see variation and all those things can be done only in exceptional circumstances if there is a change of circumstances or otherwise yes any judicial precedents to buttress that that we have to check okay this is if the order of status quo is violated this is from the youtube i'm reading what will be the remedy status quo has got order of status quo is violated that will be dealt to I have mentioned it I cited two or three decisions on that point status quo order of status quo is violated it has got the same effect what is the nature of that status quo status quo is in the form of the properties to be preserved and an order of status quo is passed and it is violated it can be dealt with under move to even an undertaking defendant makes an undertaking don't grant an order of injunction I will not commit the mischief which is complained off and such an undertaking is recorded and it is violated he can be punished there is a supreme court judgment undertaking that can also be utilized under the rent matter where the tenant gives an furnishes an undertaking that he will evict yes after the supreme court has said that it is a contempt yes order if you violate that so so those parameters can always be or let's assume under the service matter there undertaking is given that we will abide the law whatever judgment is there then also supreme court and the I could say is that it is a violative of the order you are violating the order with impunity so you can be a halt up for punishment so you are given in those matters normally you are given time to purge out of the contempt the last question we are taking if temporary injunction application is rejected and suit have been disposed in default without evidence can the observations made in the temporary injunction be used against any person in any other proceedings no no no right so so thank you sir so we are on time finished you are always on time yes like we normally say that the hall mark of a successful person is that thirsty practices preachers and thereafter also abides by the time so we are all thankful to justice katie sankaran for taking out time during these testing times to make us understand the law understand the law in the right sense and we are all enlightened by his way the thing he takes things forward he in fact shows us the right window in the dark alleys of thought processes if any in a participant those who watch us on live on the youtube facebook or in instagram as well as on this platform and those who have missed any previous session they can always watch justice katie sankaran sessions or beyond law sessions or beyond law clc sessions on the youtube keep on sharing liking and making comments upon the youtube channels of both the platforms thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed and thank you don't stay see you