 planning to practice as well as do the arbitration. We can only wish him all the best for all these endeavors. And we know that all his, the previous two innings have been very successful. And he has stated as indebtable mark in all these affairs. And we know that while he came on platform, his sessions on various aspects have been well received. And as we were discussing the various sessions while I was congratulating him, after committing the office by playing such a wonderful innings as with the same cricket. Wherein the lawyers and the judiciary received his judgments as they were well received on account of the fact it covered various aspects of law, the nitin gritties of the same were well received. And we were also receiving the messages to the effect that we should have certain sessions on the procedural law to understand. Therefore, we kept the topic for today, which deals with the procedural law. But then at the same time coming from a person who has seen as a lawyer as well as a judge, what could be the fallacies while we prepare the suits for injunctions and what are the essentials for pleadings? We won't delve much into the legal jargon that is the judgments are such, but yes, what should be kept in mind just opposed with the judgments would be there. So the topic from the normal times would be slightly short so that we can have Q&A as a lawyer or a student of law would try to understand what could be the essentials which should be kept while pleading the suits for injunctions. And there are various aspects of the injunctions. What are the aspects to be taken into consideration? These all issues will be taken from by the Justice Hari Prashant, a former judge from Kerala High Court. And we again welcome him for the third innings of his life, which we know that he will create more indemnable mark. As they say that there's a famous song, Pati Thavishruv, we say that for him the life should begin right now. What do you say? Thank you Vikas for the kind words and thank you very much for this introductory remarks. Now actually the topic that we are going to deal with today that is injunction. It's a very familiar subject for lawyers and especially I'll try to put it from the perspective of you for the benefit of junior lawyers or the perspective of a beginner of this thing. And I find some senior faces there. Of course, it may be slightly fundamental for them if I go a bit, what do you call it, in a lighter vein in this subject. So as you know, injunction, as per the definition in Black's law dictionary is an order passed by a court commanding or preventing an action. It's a mandatory direction or either it can be in the form of commanding or preventing some illegality being done. So that is injunction. And I'll just make some introductory remarks about injunction and then I'll go to the integrities of pleadings later. No, it is undoubtedly an action in persona. Injunction is an action in persona. It can't be done in gross. Injunction has also been defined as a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case. Depending on the facts and circumstances in the case, you have to frame the injunction relief in such a manner to prevent a wrong being done. Then the main considerations while determining or deciding the rights of parties in a suit for injunction is justice, equity, and good conscience. Apart from law, the equitable principles also play an important role in the adjudication of injunction suits. So these are some fundamentals. Now we will look into some different types of injunctions possible before going into or delving into other aspects. Let us just have a basic idea about that. Now there is an injunction called, there is a type of injunctions called affirmative injunctions. Then in the specific relief act 1963, we call them mandatory injunction, affirmative injunction. And of course, you know the prohibitive injunction, preventing someone from doing something which may injure the other person is called prohibitive injunction. Then anti-suit injunction, that's another kind of injunction where an injunction is sought prohibiting a litigant from instituting other related litigation usually between the same parties on the same issues. So anti-suit injunction is an injunction which prevents the other party from filing a suit in respect of the same issues pending in one suit. Now that is another type of injunction possible. Then as you are aware, the injunction relief or the request for injunction relief before a court is a co-attimate action. That is to prevent something, hastily preventing something, co-attimate action. Now that is why it is called co-attimate injunctions. An injunction granted to prevent an action that has been threatened but not yet violated the plaintiff's rights. No, once it is violated, it can't be called a co-attimate action. But when there is a threat of being violated, then you can approach the court that is called a co-attimate injunction. Then reparative injunction, that is another kind of injunction possible. That is to some extent that can be called as mandatory injunction but other forms are also possible. Anyway, that's another class. In the classification of injunctions, you will find reparative injunction as one type of injunction, whereby the defendant will be directed to restore the position that the plaintiff occupied prior to the commission of the wrong. It's a kind of restoration of the plaintiff's situation before the wrong was committed on him. That is called reparative injunction. So just to sum up this aspect, there can be different types of injunctions, affirmative injunction and one form is mandatory injunction and the prohibitive injunction that we know permanent prohibitive injunction, then anti-soup injunction, co-attimate injunction, reparative injunction. And these are the different kinds of injunctions possibly the list is not exhaustive but I just wanted to tell you that these things are possible in law. All of us are aware that prohibitive injunction forbids or restrains an illegal act that is used for forbidding or restraining an illegal act, whereas mandatory injunction orders an affirmative act or mandates a specified course of conduct. You are asked to do certain things. In the case of prohibitive injunction, you are prevented from doing certain things. So one is the converse of the other. It is a statically established fact that in the case of permanent release of injunction, you have to refer to the specific relief act 1963 because the part three dealing with preventive relief and there are chapters seven, eight, sorry, seven and eight are the chapters falling into this part of preventive relief, the specific relief act. So starting from section 36 to 42, you will find the principles relating to permanent prohibitive injunction and as well as mandatory injunction decree. Then for temporary injunction reliefs, you'll have to refer to order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the temporary injunction reliefs are dealt with and the substantive provision in the CPC relating to a grant of temporary injunction, you will find supplementary proceedings dealt with in section 94. So order 39, CPC, redwood section 94 CPC, you will get the principles relating to the grant of temporary injunctions. Now, coming, so these are the basic things about, I just wanted to take you to the fundamentals related to the law of injunction. Then coming to the rules of pleadings. As you're all aware, the rules of pleadings are regulated in order six, order seven and order eight of the CPC. And as in any other case, the rules relating to pleadings will have to be observed. For example, order six, order six rule two says that every pleading shall contain and contain only see the usage because it is very, very positive expression, very affirmative. Every pleading shall contain and contain only a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. So this is a fundamental principle relating to all suits which is applicable to injunction suits as well. So you have to suppose, now we will go to the different kinds of injunctions possible, this perceive open that we will discuss later. Now assume this is suit for injunction by a person in possession of immobile property, apprehending danger of being dispossessed or somebody threatens that he'll be dispossessed. Suppose he wants to keep his possession intact, then he can file a suit for permanent robbery injunction, restraining the person, the defendant from trespassing into your property and then what we call dispossessing you from the property. So there are the pleadings, essential pleadings as all of us know that there must be an affirmation as to the possession of the plaintiff. How he came into possession, what are the indications of his possession? For example, if he's residing in a house in the property or if he is taking income from the use of it from the property. So these are all indications of possession so that he'll have to plead. And then he may not produce evidence along with the pleading but then he'll have to plead in clear terms as to what is the fundamental basis on which he claims injunction against the defendant. So that is one rule of pleading in order six rule two. Then coming to then rule four in order six says, particulars to be given where necessary where the particulars of this thing that is fraud and you influence likewise there is a threat of injunction or there is a threat, sorry, there is a threat of trespass then you should make a mention as the defendant was trying to trespass into your property that is why you are approaching the code for a intimate injunction. So that pleading must be there. Then other aspects I'm not going into order six in detail. Then coming to order seven as you're aware the immobile property should be properly described. If it's a suit relating to immobile property injunction suit is relating to immobile property then the property should be described properly so that the fundamental principle is that there cannot be an evasive injunction, unclear injunction or first-cated injunction is impossible. It must be clear in terms because there is a penal consequence following for the alleged disobedience of injunction as provided in order 21 rule 32 because the party can be put in prison or it can be melted with the what you call this monetary consequences. So injunction orders and decrees must be very clear for which the materials should be supplied in the pleadings. Then in the case of written statement in a suit for injunction, the principles mentioned in order eight relating to written statements in all suits are applicable here. Suppose there is an assertion by one party that I'm in possession of the property the defendant is trying to trespass upon my property and the defendant wanted to deny the plaintiff's position then it must be denied in clear terms. It cannot be over the quality. You cannot have an evasive denial which is prosecuted under order eight rule four and specific denial is required under order eight rule five. So these are the fundamental rules regarding pleadings which may be what you call which may be looked into in injunction suits as well just like any other suits. So the compliance of order six, order seven, order eight are mandatory in the matter of pleadings. Then Now there are different suits, kinds of suits possible in this subject. For example, now suppose let us take permanent robbery to injunction which is in the nature of what you call it is in the nature of prohibiting someone or forbidding someone from doing an illegal act. So it can be in different ways. Now as you are aware, suppose the plaintiff and I'm speaking about normal property suits for the time being, we'll go to the other suits later. Take a case of a suit relating to immobile property where the plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the property by virtue of a title. So he has to establish in his pleadings or he'll have to set out in his pleadings as to how he obtained title to the property. So he must mention the derivation of type. You must have to say that this was purchased by him or this was gifted to him or he obtained the property pursuant to a will. Whatever it is, his title, how did he obtain title to the property and how he can see of course, when there is title, if the title holder was in possession of the property, it is very easy for the title holder to hand over position for the assignee. Now suppose the title holder was not in possession. He was holding the property only on title but somebody else was in possession. Then the plaintiff who claims right from such a person, he'll have to establish that I got title from this person and I got possession of the property either by act of parties or through operation of law. Suppose let us take a case where the plaintiff claims title by virtue of a gifted from his father. One example I'm telling you, he obtained a gift from his father and the father was not in possession of the property. The property was outstanding in the possession of a tenant at the time of making the gift. So the plaintiff can only have a symbolic possession of the property because as a dony, he gets only the right to possess, not actual cast possession. Suppose the tenant in that case asserts a hostile title. Then the plaintiff cannot simply file a suit for injunction against him because admittedly he's a tenant under the donor who is the father of the plaintiff. So he'll have to take steps for recovery of possession as well. So a suit for private injunction may not be maintainable in such case even if he has title to the property. So what I'm trying to tell you is that in all suits, in all planes where the plaintiff asserts that he is having title to the property, it may not be possible to claim private injunction because what is important in a suit for injunction, private injunction, is that the plaintiff is in possession of the property as on the date of suit. So unless he is able to plead and establish his title as well as the title through which he claims possession and if he satisfies the court that he is in possession of the property on the date of suit, then only his entitlement to claim private injunction would arise. So that is the fundamental issue. Now, let us take the other issue. Suppose he is not a certain title, he simply says that I am in possession of the property for long years. I may not have title, I have no claim of title but then I am in possession, excluding the entire world from possession, I am holding the property in possession. Now, if that is his claim, then certainly he'll have to narrate all the aspects in his pleadings as to how long he is in possession, whether it is a peaceful possession or whether it is what you call some sporadic act of acquiring possession. Now, if he is in peaceful possession, certainly he is entitled to seek injunction against the defendant because injunction can be viewed as an injury, sorry, trespass can be viewed as an injury to the right to possession. So any trespasser who is intending to postpone property can be prevented by a co-activate injunction if the plaintiff pleads and establishes that he is in peaceful possession of the property for a considerable long time. Now, there is one proposition of law. Suppose a person without a certain title claims that he's in possession of the property for long time and the true honor may be someone else. To the knowledge of the true honor, if he is keeping possession, the plaintiff is keeping possession without title and the title holder comes forward to trespass upon the property. Asserting that I have title, you have no title, though you may have possession, I will not allow you to keep possession, I'll trespass upon your property. Suppose such a stand is taken by the title holder, then the person in peaceful possession for long time can file a suit for property injunction even against the true honor that is the principle. Of course, there was a difference of divergence of opinion, but now there are by so many decisions, it has been settled that an injunction suit can be filed by a person in peaceful possession or in settled possession. The word used in the decision is settled possession. It's not a sporadic act. Today morning, I trespass and tomorrow I file a suit. That is not a settled possession. Suppose I hold the property for three years or five years and unchallenge without any challenge. Then of course, I can be said to be in settled possession. In that event, I can even maintain a suit against the true honor for injunction. If anybody is interested in a decision, you may please refer to 2004 1 SCC 769. 2004 volume 1 SCC 769. And these principles I've been stating as early as in 1924. A year 1924 Prumikounsil 1 double 4. A year 1924 PC 1 double 4. And you will find in K.C. Alexander's case that is A year 1968, Supreme Court 1165. So the proposition that I'm trying, of course, there is a contract decision on this point. That is 1994 volume 5 SCC 547. 1994 5 SCC 547, which says that a person in possession cannot file a suit for injunction against a true honor. Anyway, that has been deviated in 2004 1 SCC 769. Later, also this decision 2004 1 SCC 769 was followed in other decisions as well. So now the position is that a plaintiff without title, if he's in peaceful possession and if he's in settled position for a long time, then he can maintain a suit for injunction even against the true honor. The remedy of the true honor is only to get the property recovered by filing a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of his title. Till then, the plaintiff may be a trespasser, but anyway, he has been in position for a long time. So the possessory right of the plaintiff will have to be protected, that is what the decision say. So that is maybe an extra, that's an extraordinary situation property. Then recently the Supreme Court has speaking through justices, Nageshwar Rao and Justice Gawai printed a decision where it has been held, not a new proposition, but it has been restated that when there is a title dispute, a suit for property injunction simplicity is not maintainable. Now, when the plaintiff himself admits or if the defendant establishes that there is a dispute relating to the title to the property over which an injunction decree is sought for, then a simple suit for injunction may not lie because the plaintiff will have to seek a declaration of his title as well as as a consequential relief under section 34 of this specifically fact, you'll have to claim a consequential relief for prohibitive injunction. So when there is a dispute, when there is a question of title dispute or rather disputed question of title, then the remedy of the plaintiff is not a simple suit for injunction, but a suit for declaration and consequential injunction. So these are the two aspects of prohibitive injunction in respect of immobile property. In all other cases, there is a larger bench decision by the Kerala High Court that was reported in 1979 Kerala Law Times, KLT, in short. 1979 KLT 766, that is reported in AIR also and Manu Patra also have the same citation where the question of Kerala Land Reforms Act was considered, some questions in the Land Reforms Act was considered where the question was whether in a suit for injunction, a reference to the special body called Land Tribunal is required or not, where the fuller bench of the Kerala court held that in a suit for injunction solicitor, what is to be decided is only whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property as on the date of suit. So all other questions are extraneous in a suit for injunction solicitor on the basis of possession. So let us conclude this discussion by saying that in a prohibitive injunction suit, if the plaintiff claims injunction relief on the assertion of his title, then certainly he'll have to plead and establish that he has got title and consequently has got possession over the property through a particular title, then he can succeed. Suppose he claims possession only without claiming title, then applying the principle in 79 KLT 766, the plaintiff has to establish that he is in possession of the property as on the date of suit. And if the defendant in the suit for injunction is the true owner and if the plaintiff who is a wrongdoer or who came into possession of the property long prior to the litigation and he is in a settled position, settled possession, then of course he can maintain a suit for injunction even against the true owner provided he is not a sporadic trespasser. So these are the principles relating to this injunction suits in respect of immobile properties where possession is involved. So the pleadings in this case, as I told you earlier the rules in order six, order seven, order eight in the case of written statement will have to be clearly adhered to and all these aspects will have to be pleaded whether he claims title and how he obtained title, how he was put in possession. If he is not in possession, he can't file a suit for injunction his remedy is to file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, whatever it is in that manner it goes. So then coming to mandatory injunctions in respect of and dealing with immobile property for the time being in respect of immobile property, section 38 deals with specifically fact section 38 deals with perpetual injunction when granted subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication that is what the section says then coming to mandatory injunction that is 39 section 39, when to prevent the breach of an obligation it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing the court may in its direct discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. So this is the principle of we have seen that is an affirmative injunction and if injunction is an affirmative injunction suppose a person has demolished a compound wall took two owners adjacent owners their properties are separated by a compound wall suppose the one person on the northern side demolishes the compound wall and the southern side property owner is agreed by the conduct then he can file a suit against the northern owner by asking him to reconstruct the wall in its original position. At his expense that is called a mandatory compel to do a thing so these are all actually akin to our representatives in the article 226 or article of course 32 mainly deals with the fundamental rights but in article 226 you have this prohibition and the mandamus prohibition is almost akin to these principles in the prohibitive injunction aspect and mandamus of course in the form of mandatory injunction where there is a command to do a particular thing so a mandatory injunction is normally claimed when a person has cost violation of the plaintiff's right and restoration of his condition of his position is required and if the person is refusing to restore the plaintiff then his remedy is to approach a code for mandatory injunction so the principle of that as in the case of prohibitive injunction the rule of pleadings is the same because then you'll have to plead as to what is your right how is it affected or what is the injury cost to your rights what are the wrongdoings of the defendant and what is the extent of what you call what is the extent of restoration or rather reparative injunction that you are expecting from the hands of the court so the pleadings and the reliefs must be very clear so the molding of relief is very important because if you omit something that will be an incomplete package and as you are aware this execution is only as provided in order 21 rule 32 maybe disobedience of temporary injunction order 39 rule 2a is there of course that's a different aspect which we are not concerned for the time being now order 21 rule 32 deals with the this enforcement of injunction decrease but to some extent there are some decisions which say that even a prohibitive injunction can be enforced suppose the mischief was done during the interregnum of the suit it can be enforced there is a line of decisions anyway it is very difficult unless the decree is specific unless the decree is clear it may be difficult at the time of execution to untenable claims may arise at the time of execution to avoid or to avoid that it is always better to have a clear pleading and the relief must be claimed distinctly then coming to other forms of now we have seen the immobile property suits where plaintiff is in having title and possession he'll have to set all these details if he's only having possession then he'll have to price his possession from some lawful origin and if he's in settled possession for a long time even the plaintiff can even claim a relief of injunction prohibitive injunction against the title holder and in the case of mandatory injunction what is the breach committed by the defendant and how are you affected by the breach are the matters to be pleaded and the relief must be claimed distinctly very clearly without any ambiguity then then coming to no suppose let us take another type of injunction suit possible suppose a person grants license in favor of another say for doing something for example in the form of what they call a permission to stay in a house it's not a lease something lesser than a lease it's only license now the principle in the Indian Eastman's Act if you refer to section 52 onwards of 262 you will find that a licensee is not in possession of the property because the provisions of 108 of the TP Act is not applicable to licenses because there is no transfer of property involved so licensee is only in occupation of the property is not in possession of the property so in theory the plaintiff who is a licensor can claim that he is in possession of the licensed property despite the fact that the defendant who is a licensee occupies the property so the word possession and occupation are different concepts in law so a licensor complaining that after termination of the license you are aware that the license can be terminated normally if it does not fall within section 60 of the Eastman's Act all other licenses except those falling under section 60 can be terminated at this week million pleasure of the licensor so suppose the licensor terminates the license and asks the licensee to vacate the property or immobile property after termination of license if he refuses to do so within a reasonable time provided by this statute then the remedy of the agreed licensor is to file a suit for mandatory injunction requesting the court to send the defendant who was a licensee at one point of time whose license has been terminated he shall not continue there or occupy there he may be sent out so that is one suit possible so there is there need not be a recovery suit for recovery of position because the licensee is not in possession of the property but the position becomes different suppose the licensee despite termination of license refuses to leave property for an unreasonable time because reasonable time this statute provides Eastman's Act provides reasonable time for the licensee to remove his fixtures from the property suppose any immobile property license for example a cinema theater or a rice mill or something like that given on license suppose he has erected fixtures the licensee should get a reasonable time to remove the fixtures affixed by them that is why the statute provides a reasonable time suppose the licensee does not vacate the premises even within the reasonable time then the remedy of the plaintiff or the the licensor is only to file a suit for recovery of possession if he if the licensee assumes the character of a trespasser that's a different issue not covered by injunction release the remedy is to file a suit under section 9 red with section 5 of the specifically fact section 9 CPC red with section 5 of this specifically fact so a license after what I'm trying to tell you is that after termination of a license normally licensee in respect of immobile property the plaintiff can suit so file a suit for mandatory injunction on the legal assumption that the licensee is not in possession of the property he's only in occupation of the property and this occupation becomes illegal the after expiry after expiry of the reasonable time allowed by the statute to vacate from the property so that is another set of suits possible where the platings must be the same because when was the license granted what are the terms of the license when was it revoked and despite intimating the revocation he has not moved out of the license premises so these are the essential matters to be pleaded then another see because there are umpteen types of suits possible claiming injunction release because that's a very long list type may not be possible for me to cover all those aspects in this type so there are a lot of suits possible like for example preventing a defamation suppose somebody is bent upon defaming the plaintiff or about to publish an article defaming the plaintiff he can file a suit for injunction prohibitive injunction restraining him from what you call publishing any defamatory article against him but after defamation then the it's not a co-attempt action because it has all wrong has already been done so after defamation his remedy is only to file a criminal complaint or to file a suit for damages so before the publication of a defamatory statement probably and this prohibitive injunctions who can defile then it's a common this what you call feature in the state of kerala where in any other state for that matter you will find that suppose there is an agreement to assign property immobile property and the the the the venti the purchaser may be put in position or he may be he may not be inducted into position whatever it may be suppose one of the parties to the agreement to assign immobile property he's about to commit a breach by either the suppose the vendor is not he is trying to sell the property for a higher price to another person in contravention of the agreed terms then the remedy of the purchaser intending purchaser or the venti is to file a suit for injunction pro seeking pro-committer injunction against the vendor from assigning the property to a third person in violation of the contract but there are certain decisions where say where it is stated that when a specific relief is claimable when the when it is time for example suppose there is a contract i'll just explain that suppose there is a contract where the time agreed to agreed for performance is six months say advance amount paid within six months the balance has to be paid then there thereafter the vendor will have to executed a deed of conveyance in the name of the venti if that is his stipulation suppose after three months advance as accepted by the vendor after three months within six months suppose he is trying to alienate the property then an injunction suit can be fired because this is a premature action in respect of personal performance is concerned it is too early because time fixed is not completed so that is one way of it looking it suppose the intended alienation is after six months then the remedy of the venti is not to file a prohibitive injunction suit but to file a suit for special performance of the contract along with a prior for prohibitive injunction or temporary injunction under order 39 now that is the distinction there then another question probably is the right of injunction against co-owners no injunction cannot be as a rule claimed by one corner against the other corner the obvious reason is that each corner is presumed under law to be the owner of every injured property and every corner is presumed to be in position for and on behalf of other co-owners so injunction taken as a what you call violation of possessory rights can be claimed by one corner against the other corner for the simple reason that they are supposed to be in joint position the legal the the presumption of law is that each corner is in position for and on behalf of other corner as well but there may be situations where one corner can file a suit for injunction against entry or trespass or ousting the possessing corner that is possible in theory when the corner plaintiff or the plaintiff corner asserts in his pleadings that he came into possession of the co-ownership property and he does not deny the rights of other co-owners but he was put in possession by other co-owners to maintain the property to keep up the property then if he is try if the other co-owners try to push him out of the property then he can file a suit for prohibitive injunction seeking that other co-owners may not send me out of the property because I am not a trespasser I do not deny their rights I have been put in position by an agreement or by an arrangement between the corners and I am even liable to pay profits share of profits to the other person because I am in possession suppose I have been sent out of the property then I will be having a liability to pay profits as well as I will be out of possession so there will be double what you call bold for me so please grant injunction against the other corners from forcefully evicting me from the property is theoretically possible but very rarely such situation arise but then in theory it is possible as we find in suits for partition when there is a claim for partition normally there will be some corners in possession and some will be out of possession so if one corner in possession is sought to be evicted from the property during dependence of the litigation he can find a suit for he can file an application for temporary injunction in the same suit in the suit for partition saying that no I am in position of the property as a corner or rather I say that I am in position of the property denying their rights whatever it is and I may not be forcefully evicted because this suit has to be decided whether partition needs to be granted or not to what extent is a matter to be decided in the suit till then I may be allowed to continue such a stand is legally possible then another type of injunction which between corners is injunction against commission of waste waste means it can be demolition of buildings can be cutting and removing trees or it can be excavating soil from the property so any act which reduces the value of the property cornership property is an actionable wrong suppose the plaintiff says that as a corner I am entitled to property along with the defendants and the defendants are trying to commit waste in the property or damage something there which will affect my corner ship right so please restrain them by a progerbiter injunction from committing waste that is also a sort of injunction that can that can be claimed by corner by one corner against the other corner so normally if we start by saying that the junction between corners is not generally allowed because each person is presumed to be owner of the property but then in exception circumstances it is possible to claim injunction by one corner against the other corner if these conditions are satisfied then quick this aspect about temporary injunctions because now coming to order 39 CPC the temporary injunctions are generally claimed for preservation of the property in dispute till the dispute is finally resolved or till the adjudication has till the rights are adjudicated properly the property status of the property should be preserved or maintenance of status quo and day is the reason for claiming a temporary injunction it varies from facts to facts in a suit for partition normally the claim for temporary injunction will be against commission of waste in a suit for injunction against trespass will be that the party should be directed to maintain status quo the effect of injunction is to maintain status quo and the court will decide as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property as on the date of suit suppose the defendant trespasses in the meantime the plaintiff will be compelled to alter the nature of the suit to one for recovery of possession so that will be a cumbersome procedure that will incur cause for the plaintiff as well as it's a time consuming exercise so just to prevent that the court can pass a temporary injunction order virtually directing the defendant to maintain status quo and day of the property that is the purpose of order 39 rules in the order 39 then so generally speaking injunction reliefs are of two types one is affirmative which is in the form of mandatory injunction the other is prohibitive which is in the form of permanent prohibitive injunction and the other and injunction is always presumed to be a quiet amount of action and once the wrong has been done there is no question of granting a prohibitive injunction because then the question of restoration happens and the pleadings essential pleadings as suppose the plaintiff claims injunction on the basis of title and possession then he'll have to set out the documents or the channel through which he obtained title and how he came into possession and the materials to establish that he's in possession of the property shall also be produced either along with the pleadings or before the start of evidence then in the case of other mandatory injunction also you'll have to set out what is wrong committed by the defendant what is the injury suffered by him to what extent it should be restored how it deserves to be restored and in all suits for injunction as in the case of all suits especially in injunction suits the pleadings must be specific with respect with regard to the rights and the apprehended danger or with regards to the rights and the committed wrong and also it must be very clear in terms regarding the release that are claimed because omission of release will be fatal in the manner of in the matter of execution of injunction decrease. So these are the birds' eye view of the injunction reliefs claimable and the general rules of pleadings. Now I think Mr. Vikas we will go for this if there is any question probably I can clear that. Mr. Vikas, I think 45 minutes so that I'll keep my time. Yeah here we haven't received any message I will just check it on the YouTube. Okay. I think you have yeah only one. Can this is just can the transpose what is it a question probably I cannot see the question. Can injunction grant not transpose the plaintive as a defendant? No injunction suit it is not possible because there are rival interests or competing interests it's not possible to plane trans no it's seen not possible not in that sense maybe it may be possible in say for technical reasons. Suppose A claims injunction relief against B saying that B is trying to transpose upon my property there is no question of transposing B in A's position because their interests are different they are conflicting but suppose A and B together file as for injunction and against C and D. D files a written statement supporting the claim of A and B then probably in the absence of B or A A B D can be transposed depending on the nature of readings and the positions that they take it can be decided normally it is not possible to transpose and not indicate as in the case of partition this is not such a type because the conflicting interest may arise if that if there is a conflicting interest they can't be transposed. Can injunction be used to cancel fraudulent documents? Injunction can be used for canceling fraudulent documents because there is a specific provision specifically for cancellation of instruments that is section 31 if I remember correctly one minute please. Yes 31 that is falling under chapter 7 sorry chapter 5 cancellation of instruments specifically deals with this cancellation of instruments that is documents 31 to 33 deal with those aspects and the injunction is not a remedy for cancellation of a document. Then anti-pillar order please explain it sir Anton Pillar order. Anton Pillar or a healthy suit I don't know what exactly is that can. And you will explain it again Umayesh says what what the injunction in mandatory form? No the question should be. The question is not very clear but I will try to answer this question because in generally speaking mandatory injunction relief temporary mandatory injunction relief cannot be or shall not be granted is the general rule but only in exceptional circumstances it can be granted because mandatory injunction relief are directing a party to do a particular thing or restore the plaintiff's right. Now for that it has to be adjudicated and decided that the plaintiff has such a right and the defendant has violated his right. So before adjudicating properly it is unfair to grant a mandatory injunction in the temporary injunction form mandatory relief in the temporary injunction form. So normally the courts are reluctant to grant a temporary mandatory injunction because the courts are not equipped with sufficient materials to decide whether there is any infringement of the plaintiff's rights but in the case of a probability injunction the position is different. Virtually probability injunction is only to see that the the status quo and the of the property is kept. So there is not that much danger but in the case of a temporary mandatory injunction suppose a situation has been asked to be undone by the defendant. Suppose the plaintiff has no right in the ultimate trial if it is found that he has no such right then the defendant will be put to prejudice. So normally the courts are reluctant to grant mandatory injunction in the interim form. What is the difference between temporary injunction and mandatory injunction? No temporary injunction and identity injunction. Temporary injunction means that is identity in the order of injunction if you read order 39 just one minute I will explain that there is a confusion among a lot of lawyers about that. Order 39. Order 39 rule 1, 2, 3 etc. If you read those provisions it is clear that the what is referred to there is only temporary injunction but temporary injunction as we understand from this provision is the injunction that is granted on an application filed along with a suit for injunction or any other suit for that matter for claiming injunction till the disposal of the suit that is called temporary injunction. Any injunction granted after hearing both sides after considering the affidavit filed in support of the injunction application is also the counteraffidavit filed by the respondent defendant and the court after hearing both sides an order of injunction is passed and that will continue till the disposal of the suit unless it is reversed in appeal. So such orders are called temporary injunctions. Adentury model of injunction is that the normal rule is noticed because you are aware caveat can be 5148a even if no caveat is filed the normal rule is that temporary injunction shall be granted only in exception circumstances. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favor and he will suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction is not granted. These are the three parameters for grant of injunction. One prima facie case, second thing balance of convenience, third thing whether injury will be suffered by the plaintiff. If these three things are established the plaintiff is allowed to get temporary injunction but if that is to be given in an adjuncturing form without hearing the defendant the plaintiff will have to establish a strong case in the plaintiff as well as he will have to produce the relevant documents to show that he has a prima facie case. Then only the court can pass an adjuncturing model of injunction and that adjuncturing model of injunction will be enforced until the defendant appears and he shows that the injunction order passed by the court is incorrect. If that is established by the defendant this adjuncturing model can be vacated in the temporary injunction application can be dismissed. So the point is temporary injunction is a relief which is granted to a plaintiff till the disposal of the suit. Adjuncturing model of injunction is a relief granted to the plaintiff till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. I think that will help lot of people to understand the final subtle difference between the two. And this is a normal call he says what is your feeling that this is on the YouTube. Why temporary injunction is put in CPC and not in the specific relief act? No temporary injunction is only a procedure matter because it is flowing out of section 94 CPC. Section 94 CPC deals with so many supplementary proceedings. Supplementary proceedings in CPC are intended to see that while a suit is pending there may be occasions or there may be situations there. The court will have to guard the rights of the parties and it will be kept intact till the final adjudication. So temporary injunction is only assumed. I will explain it in another way. Suppose in a case the plaintiff succeeds in getting a temporary injunction after taking evidence, after hearing a parties and after perusing the documents, why court finds that the suit is to be dismissed because the plaintiff has no case. He has not established a ground for temporary injunction. Then he can dismiss the suit. So not for the reason that temporary injunction is granted he did not decree the suit. So temporary injunction is only till the disposal of the suit and that is not a part of specific relief act which provides final rights of the parties. The temporary injunction is only a procedure aspect for the court to adopt till the disposal of the suit. That is why this is not mentioned in specific relief act. The last question we will take, will a position based on fraud documents be considered as a diverse position? Pardon, question please once more. I will reframe can a position based on fraudulent documents be framed be considered as a adverse position. No, adverse position you need not look into document the adverse position theory if you refer to article 65 of the limitation act or section 27 for that matter limitation act. No, adverse position is a factor is a thing which has to be established by showing that you are in possession of the property uninterruptedly net plant, net prokaryo with a hostile animus for 12 years and with an intention to exclude the entire world and you are in possession may be a wrongful possession. So that is the element of adverse possession. It may not be by through a fraudulent document even without a document a person can trespass. So there is no nexus between having a fraudulent document and adverse position. Adverse possession is a right is a wrong against the possessory right for which there is no need of a document. So whether there is a valid document or a wrong document or a fraudulent document it doesn't matter if the person in adverse possession person asserting adverse possession shows that he is in possession of the property adverse to the true owner for more than 12 years and he has a hostile animus to exclude all the world from possession. So relevancy of a fraudulent document or not doesn't affect the claim of adverse possession because it's a wrong against possession. After the restoration also whether the injunction planted earlier does it come into existence automatically or not? No it doesn't come into existence that is the set to learn out because once the soot for injunction is restored the interim orders will go. Upon restoration easy upon restoration. Upon restoration automatic restoration is not possible suppose there is a change of circumstance if the defendant is able to show that suppose the soot is dismissed and it was lying dismissed for six months. Suppose let us take a situation where the soot is for special performance of contract and there is a temporary injunction order saying that you shall not sell the property to another person except to the plaintiff and that is the order passed. Suppose the time stipulated for contract is only six months on the fifth month or on the completion of immediately after six months is such a soot is filed. The soot for special performance was dismissed for default and it lied there for one year and in the meantime the period agree to between the parties elapsed. So merely by restoration can this be done? That is your question. No two views are possible but predominantly this is the view. So what is marvia injunction? What is it? Marvia injunction. Not familiar with that term? I also never heard marvia IVA. No maybe some local usage I don't know. And then without extension of order of injunction how many days will it be enforced? No without extension means the order passed by the court must be clear whether it is for one month or two months or till the disposal of the soot or till the disposal of the application it must be made clear in the order itself. No but he's taking cue from that asian reconstruction just to say. Asian reconstruction correct. They say after six months it is vacated because normally originally it was not there now he's intending to say that wherein normally we are coming to the high courts stating there and that the state we granted let's assume it's granted in the civil region. Correct correct correct no that is because that is probably that's a direction to high courts not to the trial courts because trial courts also we are experiencing that lot of civil regions and or let's assume it's a quashing then also they say get the extension granted from the high court there's a quashing state. In the asian structure has been reiterated by just just came Joseph and Heather Bench just Sanjay Kishan qualify remember that has been reaffirmed in a later decision of the Supreme Court. They said that you have to act in strict sense with that judgment. Yes no that is probably to avoid the difficulty of what you call once granted order then it should continue there even if the other side moves for vacating it nobody takes up just to avoid that situation probably that is the reason for that decision. So the last question by P Chandra Shekhar A created a sale agreement relating to the B property by C and filed a suit against C and attached the property can B join the suit to claim his right over the property A filed a suit against A filed what is the last question you can see on the chat box chat box one minute one minute A created a sale agreement relating to B property by C and filed a suit against C and A created sale agreement relating to B property by C actually the question is not very clear. So I understand what from the question I understand A created a sale agreement. Naveen has also written the question is not very clear and same I will say how is some Karda B says what is marvia injunction and ton pillar at least I haven't heard these words I also have not heard these words I can't answer that question sorry I thought probably in the south we have those words at least no no no this is actually from where this question has come I don't okay I'm not I'm sorry I can't answer that question I don't okay shall we stop then he's saying somebody has explained he says the court order which restrains someone from removing or dealing with their assets this can be by way of an interim order and is referred to as a freezing injunction these were formally known as marvia injunctions a form of injunction okay maybe anyway that's not a familiar term for me at least in this state we don't use such expressions yeah Naveen says it's in a Shokumar case where Anton pillar has been explained okay so I'll ask SM Karda to read that or before till we conclude Naveen can post that judgment on the book oh thank you friends and it was quite engaging session by Justice Harik Prasad and it was truly true to his name that we all enjoyed the Prasad of knowledge and and that too from Hari that's the best way to see his third innings blossoming well everyone stay safe stay blessed Shivaji Dutta says Anton pillar order is used for trademark cases which enables for surprise search of premises that's it in terms of trademark of course that is where you do more of the IP or a trademark that is generally in the metro cities okay yeah thank you everyone thank you for the opportunity because we will keep on looking you upon you it's my pleasure thank you thank you and all the best for your new innings thank you thank you