 Those who have been connected with the series of Beyond Law CLC know that we have been taking different perspectives, which can audience UPSC aspirants, judicial aspirants, as well as the practicing oils and the judges to have these on the topics, which could help them not only in the practice, but as a student and even otherwise to understand, like today when we have amongst us the partners of the present webinars, Sadiq Meyers and who's been represented today by Mr. Vanish Lamba, the general counsel from the DLF, so that even the general counsels and the different managers etc. could also understand. And we all know that injunctions play a vital part for understanding of law and even otherwise practice. We talk of injunctions, days, etc. And we also know the aspects of pre-injunction and permanent injunctions, the role of civil procedure court, I elaborate upon the order 39, similarly on under the specific and keeping in view that we have participants not only in respect of the students coupled with the practicing persons, therefore we requested just as a brand Matthew who has always been kind enough to share his knowledge and those who have been connected with us are on our channel of Beyond Law CLC or on a page Beyond Law CLC would see that his knowledge sharing process has always because he illustrates, explains in a very elucidated manner. And that's where the topic was law of injunctions, theory and practice. What are the several differences? Before I would request just as a brand Matthew who himself is an epitome of knowledge. I request Mr. Vanish Lamba to share before we request Mr. Abraham Matthew as well as the theme of the share of knowledge. Thank you, thank you because a suspicious day. Not only because Justice Abraham has agreed to join us today, today happens to be Navros. Firstly, a very, very warm and happy Navros to everybody. And this is the spring equinox. So India being a agricultural country, this becomes a very important event. The other thing is that today is the World Happiness Day. The object not law itself, it's not be all end all, it is for the orderly happy society. And today is the World Happiness Day. By law and its instruments and its applicability, we want to spread the message of happiness. And speaking for Sadgamya, Sadgamya again is a word which has been derived from our ancient Vedic literature. And it also happens to be the name of Justice Krishna Ayur's residence. The objective is to attain from from unknowingness to knowledge and from darkness to light and from and from a normal life to a life of enlightenment to achieve those purposes. So with these objectives that law does not remain for itself only and not only for the lawyers, but in order to create an atmosphere of justice, equity and good conscience and create an orderly society that we have partnered with your organization and educational institutions. So therefore the industry is here, the educational institutions are there, the practicing lawyers are there and of course the gems from our judiciary in order to spread the message of knowledge. Knowledge be free for all and may be used for the purposes of the betterment of a society. Happy World Happiness Day. Welcome sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. As special ambassadors, this ultimate objective of the law is happiness. But law itself does not give us happiness. It is only a means to achieve happiness. So pursue the happiness. Okay. An orderly society is suspectant. That is the objective of law to maintain order and thereby happiness in the society. So as we all know, the court of injunction is a court of equity. It is the description of courts to grant or not to grant injunctions. It's a preventive relief. Preventive relief, how it is granted. It is granted in the form of injunctions, either temporary or perpetual. This is what section 36 of the specific relief act says. There is a classification as the section 36 indicates perpetual or temporary injunction. What is the basis of this classification? The basis of the classification is the period during which it is ordered to be enforced, nothing else. So if it lasts for a certain period only, we call it a temporary injunction. That is until they dispose of the suit or before that, whatever it be. And if it continues even thereafter, then we call it a perpetual injunction. But there is another classification also. That classification is on the basis of the nature of the order. The first classification is on the basis of the period during which it is ordered to be enforced. The second is the basis is the nature of the order. It is prohibitory or mandatory. So that is the basis. The nature of the order is the basis for classification into prohibitory and mandatory. But you see the words or the expression prohibitory injunction that you will not see in these sections. Instead, you will see perpetual injunctions. Why the only the term perpetual injunction is used and why it is not said that a permanent prohibitory injunction, though we call it permanent injunction always in the practice of the profession is to call it a prohibitory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction. But the expression used is specifically fact is only perpetual injunction. Even the word prohibitory is not seen. There is a reason for it. The reason is this. Say, only a prohibitory injunction is perpetual. Or all perpetual injunctions prohibitory only. In other words, a mandatory injunction is never a perpetual one. A mandatory injunction, degree for mandatory injunctions is just how it affects the moment the act which is ordered to be done is done. Then it becomes ineffective. It has no force at all. On the other hand, a perpetual injunction means it is in perpetuity. It's ordinarily that is in the common in the in our in the as we understand it, it is in perpetuity, may not be so in all cases, but it is like that only. So that's the difference between perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction or that is the basis. That is the basis on which it is divided or dispassified into perpetual and temporary injunction, prohibitory and mandatory injunction. That time perpetual injunction alone is used because it always can be only prohibitory injunction. That is the reason. Okay, what are the features of a perpetual injunction? For all of us know the fundamentals in this law of injunction. I need not repeat it always, but we can just to refresh our memory. You can say that the features of perpetual injunction are one, it is granted only by a decree. It is granted only by a decree. The second, it can never be granted without a notice to the other party and hearing of the other party. Then it can be given only on marriage. Then it restrains from asserting a right contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs. It also restrains the defendant from committing an act, which is contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. The object is to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the plaintiff. These are the features of a perpetual injunction, we can say. Now, when it should be granted, we get in section 30H. In case of obligation arise from contract or the court is guided by the rules and provisions in chapter 2 of the specific relief action. Then in case of defendants invading, threatening or to invade the plaintiff's right enjoyment of property. When the defendant is a trustee of the property of the plaintiff, then there exists no standards for ascertaining the actual damage caused or likely to be caused by the inversion. And the inversion is such that the compensation money is not an adequate relief. Then injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings. These are the principles which devide this branding of perpetual injunction. Then when it should be restrained, it should be refused. Section 41 is there. I need not repeat it because it takes time. But the only thing we have to take note of is that by the amendment of 2018, across each year, small age, small age has been inserted, which relates to the infrastructure projects. We can read it. I think you have already read it. And there is nothing to be added. Everyone knows it. But when we come to section 41 EEs, then in section 42, if contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain action coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain action, the court may grant an injection to perform the negative agreement. How this negative agreement is enforced, that is what. So when a positive because we know that it depends mainly on this special skill of a person, suppose a person wants to sing for a company for one year and she undertakes that he will not sing for any other company for this period. We cannot come back to sing because it depends on what their skill, personal efficiency, we can say, competency. But we can, the court can say that you shall not sing for any other person for this one year. That's all, this section means nothing else. Now we see, we are coming to the practice now theory, forget the theory for the time being. Now the question is, in a suit for injunction, whether the question of title can be agitated and whether it can be decided. Normally, in a suit for injunction relating to immoral properties, especially possession of immoral properties, title of the person the plaintiff is irrelevant. That is what we have learned and that is what we have been taught. But there are some circumstances in which the question of title also is liable to be considered. In other words, question of title is not precluded from conservation because depending on the facts of the case, in a suit for injunction, title also may become irrelevant. This is what the Supreme Court has decided in the latest decision 2020, Vol. 3, SEZ, 780. In a case where the granting of injunction depends upon the question of title, then it is necessary to decide title because of failing which you cannot grant the court cannot grant injunction. So if the granting of injunction depends upon the title of the party, then the question of title also has to be considered in the suit for injunction. What happens in practice? In practice, suppose it is not a role necessary for the plaintiff to assert or allege that he has possession as well as title. It is sufficient for him to allege that he has possession. But suppose the plaintiff alleges that he has title to the property as well as possession of the property and the defendant denies his title to the property. What happens? There is a material fact that has been allege and it is denied in the first segment. And as we all know under Order 14, Rule 1, CPC, when a material fact is alleged and it is denied by the opposite party, then an issue arises. So an issue arises if it is alleged by asserted by the title is asserted by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant. An issue arises. And if an issue arises, the court has to decide it. If the plaintiff has not paid court fees for it, the court has to direct the plaintiff to pay court fees for it. Otherwise, it will not be decided. That appears to be the law. So if the injunction, granting of the injunction depends on the title of the proof of the title of the plaintiff, that has to be considered. If that is not considered, it is not possible for the court to grant injunction. So we cannot say that it is a universal rule that in no suit of injunction, title is relevant. We cannot say title may be relevant depending on the facts pleaded by the parties. So if in a suit for injunction, a decree is passed, it depends only on suit on possession alone. Nothing else. Title is not at all relevant. It is not at all agitated. It is not at all decided. Then will it operate as ajudicator for a second suit? Naturally, it will not operate as ajudicator because possession, it can change hands any type. It depends. But in a case where the question of title was agitated and decided, then will it operate as ajudicator? The Supreme Court has said that it operates as ajudicator in a subsequent suit. That is 1994, Vol. 2 is easy, 1-4. That is equivalent to AR 1994, Supreme Court, 1-5-2. So if in a suit for injunction, injunction is granted on the basis of the title and in a subsequent suit, the same question arises. It becomes a respiratory operate as ajudicator. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2005, Vol. 6, SEC, 202. In a suit for injunction, possession alone is relevant ordinarily. But suppose it is a boundary dispute, it is a boundary dispute, then can we call it if it is a suit for injunction alone? Simplicita, injunction Simplicita. There may be facts which show that it is not actually a suit for injunction, but it takes in the question of title also, boundary dispute. So in such cases, it is, the title also will have been decided in boundary disputes when there is no boundary. The court has to find out the title or on the basis of which alone a degree for injunction can be granted. That is 2020, Vol. 3 is easy, 2020, Vol. 3 is easy, 7, 8, 0. Suppose the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of a property, immobile property. And before the expiry of the period of agreement, the plaintiff files a suit for injunction. Is it maintainable? And suppose it is disposed of and is the plaintiff entitled to file a suit for specific performance later. The dispute is, the controversy is whether the subsequent suit will be banned under the provisions of order to or rule to CPC, order to or rule to CPC. Because the defendant may argue that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for injunction, a suit for specific performance, instead of a suit for injunction. And in that suit for specific performance, he should operate for injunction. It has the same course of action. So that may be his condemnation. In one decision, the Supreme Court held that it is a hit by order to rule to CPC. The second suit on the same basis or the same course of action is barred. The principle is correct, but the application of law does not appear to be correct. Or the Supreme Court has later acknowledged that it is not correct, though no defense. The Supreme Court held that in 2015, in 2016, he told that the second suit for specific performance is not barred. The Supreme Court has distinguished the earlier decision, the Vrigos Industries case, and said that the second suit is not barred by order to rule to CPC, by the principle embedded in order to rule to CPC. This has been reiterated in 2018, volume 6 is easy, 733. So the plaintiff is actually entitled to or the defendant is entitled to be in possession of the property till the period of agreement is over. Till the period of agreement is over. Suppose he wants to shift his house, he wants to find out another house, and by the time the property is sort to be alienated, then what happens? If the property is sort to be alienated, then the plaintiff, what is the remedy? So for an intentional load. And suppose 6 months is the period of time, the plaintiff has 6 months time to find out his fund for purchasing the property. He also has that right as the defendant has the right to reside in the property for 6 months as he wants to shift his residence to some other property, both how that applies. So that means even before the as per the period of agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for injection because of the facts of the case. This has been now recognized by the Supreme Court. There was an earlier decision also that is a 2005 AR Supreme Court weekly, double three, double one. That is a case in which the suit was for injunction, it was filed even after the as per the period of agreement. Thereafter, the suit for specific performance was filed. The Supreme Court held that there is no bar. Now we shall come to mandatory injunction, mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunction is not covered by perpetual injunction. It is not covered by perpetual injunction. The reason I have already told you, once the positive act is directed to be done by the party is performed, the degree becomes ineffective. It has no further effects. But only mandatory injunction granted by degrees are distinguished from orders past penalties covered by section 39. And the direction in the degree, it is not prohibitive in nature. The direction is to do a particular act, a positive action. The direction is to perform an action. The object is again to prevent breach of an obligation. For example, defendants building projects or the plaintiff's land. Defendants trees branches overhanging to the plaintiff's land. Another is the construction made by Ponan. Another is the construction by Lizzie. These are all examples. Then mandatory injunction may be prayed for along with the prayer for a recovery of possession. So both prayers can be included. Both reliefs can be prayed for in the same soups. Recovery of possession of the land and mandatory injunction to remove the unordinary construction that can be done. Then before we go to this temporary injunction, prohibitive injunction, it is proper that we consider temporary mandatory injunction, interim injunction, interim mandatory injunction. Whether interim mandatory injunction can be there is no prohibition in granting interim mandatory injunction. In appropriate cases, interim mandatory injunction can be granted in a soup. The object is the purpose is generally to preserve or restore the status quo on the last non-conductor status, which preceded the pending until the final hearing when full relief may be granted. Or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restriction of restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. Earlier 1990 Supreme Court, 861, Dorab Kawasji's case, Dorab Kawasji Warden versus Kumi Sorrel Warden. This has been reiterated in 2004 volume 7 SZC 470 age. This was followed by another decision, 2011 volume 6 SZC 73. It has enumerated the guidelines. The guidelines are given in this decision. One, the plaintiff has a strong case. It is of a higher standard than a prima facie case required in a prohibitive injunction. It should be of a higher standard. Then second is it is necessary to prevent irreparable and serious injury, which normally not be considered in terms of money. That is the second one. The third one is balance of convenience is in favor of the person seeking the relief. That is the third one. But this does not mean that these are the only three guidelines. The Supreme Court has clarified that this is not exhaustive nor complete. That is in 2011 6 SZC 73 and the latest decision on the point is 2018 volume 17 SZC 203 which is a three-digit decision. Now we are coming to temporary injunction. So in practice we have seen that instead of granting an injunction order, injunction order or adhinedirim injunction order, some courts pass the order of status quo, order to maintain status quo is in correction. When you the party we know that adhinedirim injunction order means it is always passed as party without a notice the opposite party. The opposite party is not before the court. The court actually does not know what is the situation, what is the present position. So the court grants it as party. So in such cases instead of granting an injunction order if the court passes an order of status quo what is the consequence? See the court actually does not know what the status quo is. A court without knowing what status quo is shall not pass an order of status quo. That is what the Supreme Court has said in 2006 3 SZC, 2006 3 SZC, that is a year 2006 Supreme Court 1474. Kishore Kumar Khaitan versus Praveen Kumar Singh. So a court shall not pass an order of status quo without knowing what the status quo is. It should be an undisputed one or the court should have evidence before the court what the status quo is. Otherwise what happens for the religions? The court isn't throwing the matter into the hands of the police. The police will have to interfere. The police will have to decide what the status quo was. So that should be avoided. The party should not be satisfied with an order of status quo. And if the party, if the court wants that the party should maintain status quo or if the court wants to see that the plaintiff in whose favor the injunction or temporary injunction order is granted does not take benefit of it and do some injustice in the property. What the court should do? The court shall pass an order of injunction against the respondent defendant and at the same time direct the plaintiff not to do a particular act positive acts in the property. Suppose it is a property which gives income then the court shall direct the petitioner the plaintiff not to take income from the property until further orders of the court. That means even if the order passed against the defendant happens to be wrong one and erroneous one, no prejudice should be caused to the defendant that plaintiff will not take you and take undue advantage of this wrong order. So ordinarily a prudent judge will always direct the plaintiff also from not taking any income from the property or doing any positive act in the property. Now we come to section 37 of this specific release act. Section 37. See section 37 says, cumbers are charged to continue until a specified time. So it is limited in time or until the further orders of the court and they may be granted at any stage of the court and are regulated by the court of civil procedure. A perpetual injunction can only be granted, okay, that's a different one. So it may be granted at any stage of the court. Granting of it is regulated by CPC then it continues the nature of it is that it continues only until a specified time or further orders of the court. That is why it is called a temporary injunction. Now we see section 94, section 94 C of the CPC. So it is regulated by CPC. Granting of injunction, temporary injunction. Section 94 deals with the supplemental proceedings. Cross says that to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the court may grant temporary injunction and in case of disobedience, the court may commit the guilty to the civil prison and attach and sell his property. But as we all know, the sections of the CPC only give jurisdiction to the court. How this jurisdiction should be exercised is mentioned in the rules. So the sections do the jurisdiction to the court and the rules give or direct the court how to exercise that jurisdiction, that power. So we have to go to order 39. Order 39 says in what cases temporary injunction may be granted. I need not repeat it. I need not repeat it because that is a taken consuming one. The same now, we have to manage three orders are not orders of injunction. The question before us is whether all prohibitive or prohibitive orders of passed by a court are orders of injunction. What about the guardianship? It is an order not to pay a certain amount to certain person to the defendant. Don't pay it to the defendant. It is an order, prohibitory order and it directs the defendant from receiving it. So it is a prohibitory order against the third party as well as this third party called the guardianship as well as this. Is it an order of injunction? It is not an order of injunction because an order of injunction is passed only in the situations given in order 39. And the guardianship proceedings are not given by order 39. 2009, volume 5, SEC 6, 6, 5. All prohibitory orders are not orders of injunction. And if an order of injunction is violated, the consequences provided in order 39 would be a CPC. And if a guardianship order is taken as an order of injunction, what would happen? If the guardianship is so-based, order 39. 12 will have to be enforced. That is not permitted. So that is the significance of the distinction between an order of injunction and other prohibitory orders. So it has a significance. Now, how an order of injunction or how it may be proved, the entitlement of the party to the order of injunction may be proved. The provision itself says, order 39 would one itself says, the proof may be either by affidavit or otherwise. So it is not necessary that only if an affidavit is filed by the plaintiff or the petitioner, an order of injunction, temporary injunction can be granted. If the court is otherwise satisfied, that the party is entitled to a temporary injunction order, the court can grant it. And the Supreme Order also held that even under section 151 CPC, if the situation is not covered by this order 39, the court can grant order of injunction, temporary injunction and requirements now. Now, we know that in every case, a notice is necessary. We have seen that in the case of a decree of a perpetual injunction, a decree can be passed only after notice to the party's opposite party and hearing of the opposite party. Likewise, sanction notice also is that unless notice is issued to the opposite party and he is heard, order of injunction shall not be passed. But there is an exception to it. The exception is to be called, it is addinderim expati injunction, that is the phrase used even by the Supreme Court, addinderim expati injunction. So expati injunction can be granted even without a notice to the opposite party. But whether the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, the court may grant injunction even before notice is issued and the respondent is heard. So there should be a reason for it. The reason given in the statute is that it appears to the court that the delay injunction, temporary injunction will defeat the purpose of granting injunction. The respondent is served with a notice and here for the court, the mistake will have to be done. So to avoid it, to avoid that injustice being done, the purpose of granting or temporary injunction is defeated. The court is above it to grant expati temporary injunction orders. Now what is the procedure? So there is a special procedure provided for it. It is mandatory for the court to record reasons for this. It is mandatory for the court to record reasons for dispensing with the notice. If the reason is not stated in the order, the order is illegal. So usually we just do the judges do, judicial officers do as that. And I have produced the affidavit, the plaint and the documents and satisfied that delay will defeat the purpose of granting injunction. So an order of injunction is granted as party. That is what we do. So the court shall direct the petition on the second requirement. The court shall direct the petitioner to deliver to the opposite party or to send him by register or immediately a copy of the application for injunction, a copy of affidavit, a copy of the plaint and copies of the documents. That is the second requirement. The first is that the court should record reasons. The second is that the court should direct the petitioner to do certain actions. So a copy is on the other side. And the third is that the court shall be directed to file on the same day or the day an affidavit of compliance. So he should file an affidavit stating that he has complied with the requirements of order 39, rule 3, process A and B. And suppose he has not complied with it, what happens? What is the consequence of it? The consequence is not that the order becomes illegal. The order is still legal. It is valid. But if the opposite party happens to violate that order, there will be no remedy for the petitioner. That is the only consequence. So if the petitioner fails to comply with process A and B of order rule 3 of order 39 and the order of injunction is violated by the correspondence, there will be no remedy for the petitioner. The consequence of disobedience will not flow. That is, order 39, rule 2A is not applicable in such cases. That is the only consequence. If it's okay, there is nothing wrong in it. Then the period within which the application should be disposed of. That's prescribed a period within which an application for a temporary injunction on the basis of an order of additive injunction is granted. It should be disposed of within a particular period, the code directs, the code directs, rule 3A. It provides that if injunction is granted without the notice to the correspondence, the application should be disposed of within 30 days from the date of order of injunction. Otherwise the resistance should be recorded. And the Supreme Court has taken an extreme view through Justice K. T. Thomas that if the application is not disposed of within 30 days from the date of granting this order of injunction, an appeal is made in a bill, an appeal is made in a bill. A. R. 2000 Supreme Court 3032. Then what is the purpose of granting an order of injunction temporary injunction? The purpose is to preserve status quo. The purpose is to preserve the status quo. The relief is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before which the uncertainty could be resolved. It is to protect the plaintiff from injury by violation of the rights in which he could not be adequately compensated and damages, are recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial. So, the purpose will be defeated. A. R. 1995 Supreme Court, 2372. Vidrat Bodling Company Limited versus Coca-Cola Company. Again, that has been re-trailed in the year 2598. Hindustan controlling corporation limited versus Sriman Naray. As we all know, it is the discretion relief. But the discretion should be judicially exercised. So, there are some tests to be applied. How to exercise the disclaim, what circumstances? This discretion can be exercised. There are four principles in granting this order of temporary injunction. They are, one, whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case. The second, whether the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff. The third, whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prior is disallowed. And the fourth one is conduct of the petitioner. These are the four considerations in granting or not granting an order of temporary injunction, temporary prohibitive injunction. Prima facie case should not be misunderstood as prima facie title. Prima facie case is different from prima facie title. Prima facie title has to be or the title has to be established at the trial. The weather for prima facie cases means, is there a substantial question which has to be raised, which has been raised to bona fide and needs investigation and a decision on merits. This is what is called the prima facie case. Whether the plaintiff has the petitioner has a debatable case, whether he has a debatable case, the existence of a prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of the right by one of the, by the plaintiff is a condition for the grant of temporary injection. So he has to prove the existence of a prima facie case. That is 1992 volume 1 SCC 719. It gives the meaning of prima facie case. It should not be confused with the prima facie title. Then the other one is the balance of convenience. It is a substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the persons if the injunction is refused or is granted. The need of the plaintiff to be protected against the alleged injury by violation of his right and the corresponding need of the defendant. So being being corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against the injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights must be waived. So plus and minus points should be waived. A wing should be done. This process is called balance of convenience. A year 1995 SCC 2372. So we have seen the meaning of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the third one is irreparable injury. ordinarily it is no unavailability of remedies other than the injunction for the protection of the plaintiff from the consequence of the apprehended injury. So no other immediate remedy is available. Equally efficacious remedies is available. However, it does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury. It does not mean that it should be impossible. Repairable injury does not mean that it cannot be repaired. Impossible to repair. No, it only means that the injury must be a material one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. Suppose the prayer is to restrain the defendant respondent from demolishing a building. Okay, if the building is demolished, then it can be reconstructed. There is it is not impossible. But what about the hardship? What about the hardship? So it is a material one, the injury becomes a material one. That is the meaning of the repairable injury and does not mean that it is impossible to repair it. Impossibility is not the question, whether a material injury will result from the violation of injunction or this particular action. And irreparable injury is must. Irreparable injury is must. 2012, volume 6, SCC 792. Even in the absence of irreparable injury, the court cannot grant intervention merely for the reason that my distribution, I am exercising in the plane if even though there is no irreparable injuries. No, the court cannot say so. And the last one is conduct of the petitioner. Usually we say that the petitioner should come with clean hands. The petition should be with clean hands so that he may be given an order of injunction. The reason is that it is an equitable remedy. So that is why apart from the other facts, the considerations, the court will look to the conduct of the petitioner also. So unless this is conducted from blame, he cannot be granted an order of injunction. He has to show that he himself is not at fault, and he himself is not responsible for bringing about the state of peace, combined off. And that is not unfair or iniquitable in his dealings with the respondents. In other words, his conduct should be fair and honest. That is the Gujarat bottling case we have already seen. AIR 1995, Supreme Court 2372. The terms are now explained by the Supreme Court. All these terms are explained. Another important decision, which gives the factors to be weighed before granting injunction, is Morgan Stanley Beecherfund versus Karthik Das, 1994, Volume 4, SEC 225. Now, suppose all the ingredients which are necessary to endate the plaintiff petitioner to an order of injunction are present, or they exist. This is the court bound to grant an order of injunction. The court is not bound to grant an injunction, since it is iniquitable relief. It is a judicial description that is to be exercised. That is AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2367, then 2000, Volume 9 SEC 572. Now, there are certain circumstances in which the court shall not grant an order of injunction, temporary injunction. The first one is no injunction shall be granted if it is beyond the scope of the source. If it is beyond the scope of the source, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2322, then no injunction can be granted to perpetuate a wrong. The petitioner has done a wrong to the defendant, and he wants to get protection to continue that wrong. That is to perpetuate that wrong. That cannot be granted. 1993, Volume 3 SEC 161. No injunction shall be granted if it amounts to abuse of the process of the court. If it amounts to abuse of the process of the court. 1995, Supplement 4 SEC 574. Then no injunction can be granted if it amounts to final disposal of the source. The relief paid for in the source, it is granted in the form of a temporary injunction or not. 2003, Volume 6 SEC 65. We have already seen that the purpose of granting an order of temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo, preserve the status quo. It was that the court cannot grant an injunction which has a positive import or allowing a party to do a certain thing. Injunction of negative import alone can be granted. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 441. Then no order of injunction can be granted against a true owner of the property unless the plaintiff is in settled possession. Settled possession. What is meant by settled possession? This has been explained in several cases right from AIR 96, 1968 Supreme Court 702. AIR Service Society Limited versus Parker Alexander. 1968 Supreme Court 702. 1974, Volume 1 SEC 48. 1989, 4 SEC 131. 1995, Volume 3 SEC 426. 2004, SEC 69. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1148. Sorry, that is a different word, need not write it. Then what is meant by settled possession? A rightful owner who has been wrongly dispossessed of land may retake possession in due so peace, sorry, I'm sorry, the definition that is another one. Settled possession means when a person exercises peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, that is called settled possession. So his possession should be peaceable. He should exercise the rights ordinarily exercised by the owner of the property. Then only we can say that it is settled possession. He only is endangled maintenance good for possession against a true owner. Because the principle is that nobody shall be allowed to take law in his own hands. If he has some grievance, he should go to the court, that is the principle behind it. Now sometimes, intentions are prayed for against corners. The nature of the corner should be such that every corner is an owner of every inch of the property. He has all the rights of the owners or the owner. His right is not limited to our conditions. Ordinarily, an order of injunction shall be granted against a corner, but there are exceptions. The exception is this. No injunction shall be granted against unless the court's action is inconsistent with the right of the corner. Suppose he cuts and removes all the valuable trees in the property, that is inconsistent. Suppose he makes a construction of a building, a valuable building, without the consent of others. That's inconsistent with his rights because the others are also cornered, they are also orientated to the same rights. So when it is inconsistent with the right of a corner, an order of injunction can be passed against a corner also. 1996 volume 11 SCC, 696, then in the case of bank guarantees, no order of injunction shall be passed unless there is a likelihood of fraud or fraudulent or likelihood of irretrievable injustice. Unless fraudulent or there is a likelihood of irretrievable injustice, injunction shall not be granted. So bank guarantees, AR1991 SCC, 1994 AR2006 SCC, 1148, then I have already told you that no injunction being granted to do a positive action, that is only of a negative import can be granted, I have already told you. Given the decision also, 1994 SCC, then in the case of decisions or elected bodies, like cooperative societies or our associations, no injunction can be granted if its effect is to extend the court by an order of injunction cannot extend the term of an elected body, 2009 SCC, 748. And at the initial stage, I told you that when an order of injunction is granted or instead of passing an order of injunction, the court shall not pass an order of status quo. And in the court cases, while the court grants an injunction restraining the defendant correspondent from doing an action, the court shall pass a direction to the effect that the respondent also shall not do certain things in the property. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in AR1995 SCC, 2372. The Supreme Court has held that in appropriate cases, the court should direct the plaintiff to give an undertaking or to furnish bond to compensate the defendant if the claim is subsequently rejected. So, the court is within its power to issue such a direction. In addition to the order, direct him to a particular action. If the claim is substituted by the court, you shall compensate. Now violation. Disobedience is order 39 ruled to ACPC. What are the remedies? The remedies are, we have already seen the supplementary we have already seen. Attachment plus detention. Attachment and detention. That is the description of the court. What is attachment? The effect. Attachment is enforcement. Attachment is nothing but enforcement. Then what is the nature of that order of detention? Is it punishment? Or is it an order only to see that this order is enforced? No. It is a penal in nature. It is punishment. Detention order passed under order 39 ruled to ACPC is actually a punishment. It is 7 Supreme Court 1240, Supreme Court 20 versus Hindu. The party consists of the order passed by the court is wage or illegal or widable. Is it a party who considers the order wide or widable? Cannot treat it as such and disable it. Majesty of law. He shall come to the court complaining that it is a void order bringing it to the notice of the court that is a void order. So it should be the case. The latest decision is 2017. Volume 1 is 622. Then what is the difference between injunction and stay order? Injunction and stay order. The difference. Both are prohibitory orders. But we have seen that all prohibitory orders are not orders of induction. Then what are the differences? Order of state addressed to the court. It is an order addressed to the court. Don't proceed with the case. The order of injunction is passed against a party. So one is directed to the court, the other is to the party. In the case of stay order, the court which it is addressed does not lose due resistance, does not lose due resistance to deal with the matter unless it has knowledge of the state. The court has found to set aside the proceedings taken between the stay order and the receipt of the communication of the stay order. If it is asked to do so and necessary in the interest of justice, in the interest of justice, then inherent powers, inherent powers. The court has inherent power to grant an order of injunction. Though a case is not covered by order 39. That is, A year 1962 Supreme Court, 527. A year 2007 Supreme Court, 1376. 2009 1 SCC 240. There are other decisions also. Okay. Whether violation of injunction is a contempt of court. Whether it is contempt of court. The power accessed by the court under order 39. Rule 2 is punitive in nature. I have already given you the decision. That is akin to the power to punish for civil contempt. Under the contempt of court Act 1971. A year 2009 Supreme Court, 2330. Suppose if the order of injunction is after passing this order of injunction. It was a set aside. Meanwhile, the respondent had violated the order. That means an order of injunction is passed. It is violated. Subsequently, the order was set aside by the court. What is the consequence? Whether order 39. Rule 2 is attracted. The Supreme Court in A year 1998 Supreme Court, 2765. Has had that. The consequences of disobedience will follow. The consequence of disobedience will follow. Another situation also we can consider. An order of injunction was passed. Subsequently, it was found that the court had no decision. But in between, the order was violated. What is the consequence? Whether order 39. Rule 2 is attracted. Yes. The provision in order 39. Rule 2 is CPC is attracted. A year 1997 Supreme Court, 1240. So, I told you that violation may is a violation actually amounts to contempt of a civil contempt of court. But the remedy is not under the contempt of court section. So, merely because it amounts to contempt of court, civil contempt of the court, you cannot rush the court to the petition under the contempt of court section. Your remedy lies only under order 39. Rule 2 A. That is, Food Corporation of India versus Suktau Prasad. 2009 volume 5, CPC, 665. This is the observation of the Supreme Court. The power exercised by a court under order 39. Rule 2 CPC is punitive in nature, akin to the punishment for civil contempt under the contempt of courts. I take how I will be. Yes. Now, come to section 41, section 41, clause B, specific relief action. It runs thus, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court, not subordinate that court, from which the injunction is sought. What does it mean? It means that only an injunction can be granted. Only if the other court is an inferior court, an injunction cannot be granted from instituting or prosecuting a proceeding in a court of concurrent jurisdiction or a superior court, not subordinate. A court having a concurrent jurisdiction, for example, some civil judges, additional civil judges having the same powers, same court, same jurisdiction, is not an inferior court. So, it will lie only against proceeding in an inferior court. A year 1983 Supreme Court, 1272. I think I have dealt with all the provisions which require notice, so far as a practicing lawyer's consent. The provisions which have only an academic interest, I have not dealt with. You all get it in books. You can go through it and almost all the provisions are settled by the Supreme Court also. There cannot be any confusion about it. So, I think we can wind up and we can anybody has any doubts? I will clarify. This does not mean that I will be able to clarify all your doubts. No. So, we have agreed a status quo equal to an added term injunction. Yes. Is status quo equal to an added term injunction? That is considered so. Its effect is what will be the nature of the order. The respondent will maintain status quo. The respondent will maintain status quo. What does the law provide? The law provides that if he is indicted to the injunction, an order of injunction shall be passed. That is what you are. That is indicted in the end date mentioned. Not the status quo order. The plaintiff is indicted to get an order of injunction, not an order of status quo. And suppose the order is that both parties shall maintain status quo. What does it mean? You are injenting both parties. But what is the fundamental thing that is required? The court should know what the status quo is without knowing what the status quo is. No court shall pass an order of status quo, even if it is only against the defendant or respondent or against both parties. No such order shall be passed. Because that will rise to further litigations and police cases. Sir, can I ask you questions, sir, regarding the same? No, we can ask questions. But I will not be able to give answers always. Yes. No problem, sir. Thank you. Sir, here my case, actually I have filed a case wherein I have prayed for temporary injunction to restrain the bill. Madam, is it a pending matter? Yes, sir. Maybe avoid it. Sir, I think it would be beneficial to ask. No problem. On the facts of the pending matter, please don't pass. Yes, I will not disclose all the details. I will just cover the outlines of the matter, that sort. My client is a society. It's something different case. My client is a society wherein they wanted to restrain the bill. Society, they are the plaintiffs. Yes. Okay. Here the maintenance services are provided by the builder. Yes. Oh, I see. Yes, sir. What was done in this corona period is he suddenly issued a short, very short period of notice stating that you look after hands forth the services part by the society. We are vacating from so and so date. It's a very short period. So I went to the trial court and filed an interim application period along with the plaintiff. So the court after the year. What is the wrong done by the other party? Suddenly? They gave a very short notice, sir. That's a very 10-day short notice. Not this. Asking you to? Stating that they will vacate from the, sorry, they will terminate the services, maintenance services. Oh, I see. You are providing maintenance. Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. So my client has filed a petition in the trial court stating that it's a very short period of notice. Kindly grant a temporary injunction under order 39.1 and 2, sir. Yes. Where in after hearing the learned trial judge has granted status code. Status code. Yes. So here, how I interpreted is maintain the same status as on the date. I will give you an example, one more story. Yes, sir. Which I used to tell my trainees at the Jewish Academy. Yes, sir. There was a dispute over a way, right of way. Okay. Plaintiff and defendant. They are neighbors. Okay. A person who is aggrieved by that action of the other party, that is the plaintiff, went to the court and obtained an order of status code, an order of status code. Okay. And meanwhile, before this order was obtained, the copy of the order was obtained. The police, at the instance of the defendant, summoned him to the police station. And when he was at the police station, his agent came to the police station with a copy of the order. See, this is a civil case. The police shall not interfere. Yes. And the court has passed that order of, passed that order. Then the sub inspector, the sub inspector was actually was assaulting this plaintiff in the midst of this assault. Copy of this order was given. Then he read it. What is the order? The order is to maintain status code. So what is the status code and the police station? He was assaulting the plaintiff. So the court has directed me to maintain status code. So I will maintain status code, I will continue to assault you. This is the problem with the order status code is. Without knowing the order of status, knowing the status code, if an order status code is passed, then the consequences will be disastrous. That's the problem. Yes. So ordinarily, that is why the supreme order knows that order is passed. When you are about to pass an order of injunction, why don't you pass an order of injunction? The law, the act, the court, specifically fact, neither specifically fact nor the CPC provides for passing an order of status code. Only pass an order of injunction if the party is undated, you give it to him. So it is wrong on the part of the judicial office to pass order of status code in such situation. So but it can be, actually it can be interpreted in my words, in my view it can be interpreted as an order of status code means it is an order of injunction. It is an order of injunction. But whether if it is disobeyed, order 39 bullet way will be applicable. It is a guesswork for you. That's the problem. Sir, sorry for the interruption. Here I would like to ask you one more thing. So if you consider status code is an order of injunction, then shouldn't the learned judge record the reasons for granting the status code if it is an impulsion? See that's the problem. Who says that an order shall not be passed as party without any reasons? So to avoid it, what these judges do, they pass order of status code. That is circumventing the provision. Yes, shall not be allowed to happen. That's the problem. Yes, sir. Sir, I have one, sorry, one more question, sir. You are from which state? I'm from Telangana state, sir. Yes, your academy is there. Your academy is there. Mr. Murthy was the director of judicial academy. We had one session with Mr. Murthy also. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. So we give these instructions to our judicial offices in our academy. Don't pass orders for status code. Yes, sir. Party will be the losers. Exactly, sir. Here a large number of people have suffered in this corona period and couldn't explain in words. That's the problem. The party will be utter confusion. Yes, sir. Sir, here one more question, sir. Yes. So if we, whenever we prefer an appeal from the orders, IA orders, and we, if we seek for... From which order, order of injunction? Yes, sir. From the order of injunction, if we prefer an appeal under 43, on the order 43, absolutely. Yeah. And along with the appeal, if we prefer an IA for temporary suspension of the orders, temporary suspension of the lower court orders, then is it mandatory for the appellate court to suspend or is it discretionary to suspend the lower court orders? There is no question of suspending an order of injunction. There is no question of suspending. How can you suspend that order? Is it an order of injunction or a refuse of injunction? What is the nature of that order? Order of vacating the injunction. The order was vacated. Yes, sir. So that means you want a fresh order of injunction. Sorry, sir. By the way, what did you have? Yes, sir. Out of first instance, you vacated the order of injunction, which was already granted to you. Yes, sir. That was vacated. You are challenging that order. Yes, sir. That means you have to get an order of injunction from the appellate court. There is no question of suspending an order. The fresh order has to be passed. That is the only remedy. Okay, on merits. What merits? If the court is satisfied just like this court of first instance under order 13, it is also passed under order 13. Okay, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Suspending in order, it is vacated. Okay. And where the suspension is used in law only in with regard to this sentence in criminal cases and conviction, order of conviction? I mean like a stay. Sorry to use the wrong word. I need to say it's a stay of the... Stay? Yeah, stay of the... What was stayed by the trial court? I mean what it meant to say is trial court vacated. Then again, there is no question of stay. To stay an order, an order should be enforced. There is no order enforced, it is vacated. I mean... Staying it. Okay. What you want is to get an order again. Not suspension. You must get an order of injunction from the appellate court. That is your remedy. Because an appellate court has all the powers of the original court. You must get that order from the appellate court. Okay. Okay, sir. Thank you. Thank you. So we will ask Gayathri ma'am. She is an assistant professor in CMR legal studies of the CMR university to propose the vote of thanks. Then we will ask Mr. Malish Lamba. Or do you Gayathri ma'am? Unmute Gayathri ma'am. Ma'am, you will have to unmute yourself. Gayathri ma'am. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Can you hear me, sir? Yeah. Yeah. Very good evening to all. I deem it a great honor and privilege to propose the vote of thanks on this memorable occasion on behalf of beyond law, CLC and CMR school of legal studies, CMR university, the knowledge partner. First and foremost, we express our deep felt gratitude to our today's speaker, Justice Hebra Mathew, former church, Kerala High Court for his insightful talk on law of injunctions, theory and practice. His lordship made us to understand under what circumstances can party apply for injunctions, kinds, features, purpose, principles of granting perpetual injunctions, private injunctions, and rules of specific relief act, and also order of detention, and so many other things. Thank you, your lordship, for your insightful address. We're also grateful to our knowledge partner, Mr. Manish Lamba, for taking us through ancient literature concept, the darkness to light for this world happiness day. Thank you, sir. We are grateful to our beloved Dean, Professor T.R. Subramanya, CMR school of legal studies, CMR university for his encouragement and continuous support. Thank you, sir. We thank all the distinguished audience who are following the Instagram and Facebook beyond law CLC. The learned advocates, the research scholars, participants, and all of the distinguished invitees present here. Thank you all. I also express my sincere thanks to host beyond law CLC, and Mr. Vikas Chathrat sir for organizing this webinar for today. Thank you all. World happiness day to all. Be happy, stay safe, stay blessed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. What a wonderful summarization of the entire law relating to injunctions. What can be granted, what cannot be granted, what is permanent, and what is temporary? What is a stay, and what is order with respect to status quo? It was a wonderful journey of the last more than 100 years of case laws were quoted. It is very difficult for me to even take notes, the manner in which not justice Abraham Matthew has rattled out citations and cases. This can only come from an expert, whether it was the Coca-Cola, Gujarat Bottler's case where injunction can be granted, where negative components can be implemented, where it cannot be implemented in the entire law. Injunction to a civil lawyer is same as bail to a criminal lawyer. And you never get a second chance to make your first impression. And the first impression to the client in the court, Prima FSI in a suit is made in an injunction application. Prima FSI, the case of the first day is decided and then the entire merits takes place at going deeper into the evidence, the things may be different. But the full cardinal pillars and pillars on which this entire law is rests has been very beautifully explained by Lord Justice Abraham Matthew that there has to be a Prima FSI case. What is a Prima FSI case will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The balance of convenience needs to be there and that balance is in the judge's mind and those facts and the grounds and the reasoning which has been tendered across the bar will examine that whether the balance, wherever the balance tilts, that is where the justice will be done. And there needs to be irreparable harm and injury. And very beautifully, your Lordships have explained that what is irreparable harm and injury, irreparable harm and injury is not impossibility. Irreparable harm and injury is that which cannot be measured and the pain of the litigant which a judge needs to feel and empathize with that whether or not that is irreparable harm and injury of all the conduct. The conduct that would be of the plaintiff, he enhanced whether or not he has come immediately, whether or not there in latches, whether or not he is taking advantage of his own wrong or whether or not it will be just and equitable. The manner in which this entire law relating to injunction, whether under the CPC or under the specific relief act, it has been explained. It is a mammoth task in one and a half hours. It has been beautifully summarized. I hope practitioners and students of law would take notes and would refer to all those pearls of wisdoms in the judgments, the citations which have been quoted will be noted off. And we are happy on this happiness day. And we are too happy to have you, sir. And we are honored and privileged. A great thank you to Gayatri ma'am, to Vikas, and above all, Lord Justice, Abraham, Matthew, so kind of you. We are all thankful for the pearls of wisdom. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to CMR Legal Studies, CMR University, and Sadgma. And after the wave, Manish Lamba and Gayatri ma'am have summed up. I don't think it requires further, because already there are a lot of cherries and toppings on the cake to express the vote of thanks, the way, sir, has expressed all this as to halt the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and what we say is, Ramav Shai, case has to be seen for injunction. And what is the difference between the temporary and the permanent injunctions and the subtle differences between specific relief act? And a lot of people, like sir, rightly said, where the co-shader could be filed. Otherwise, normally one carries the impression that there couldn't be a petition against a co-shader seeking injunction, etc. So thank you to all those participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook and on this platform. And in the endeavor to continue with our series on 26th, we will be having a session on Burden of Prove by Justice Bilappa from Karnataka High Court. Do stay connected with us on 26th. Everyone stay safe and stay blessed. And as we said, it's a happiness day. So today I add another, since the corona is rising, that everyone should be rather be happy and not stressed out with the corona. And we all believe that we should come across through the corona and with the positivity of life on a happiness day. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And thank you to Justice Abraham Matthew who has always been kind enough to share his knowledge on this platform. Thank you, sir. Everyone, thank you. Have a good day.