Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
When parties file applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the courts often decide on these applications promptly, and the procedures involve notices, affidavits, and sometimes, appeals or objections ["Nankau VS State Of U. P. Thru Secy. Revenue - Allahabad"] ["Zafar Mohd. vs Vaseem Saifi - Delhi"] ["Navuluri Suseela Devi VS Sri Satyanarayana Educational Society - Andhra Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2176"]- ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1,Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1302"]- ["BOWRING INSTITUTE VS SARWIK S. S/O R. SHIVAKUMAR - Karnataka"]- ["Bowring Institute VS Sarwik S. - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Navuluri Suseela Devi VS Sri Satyanarayana Educational Society - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Sanjay Thakkar VS Bhojja Shantu Shetty - Bombay"]- ["Priya Chouhan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Priya Chouhan VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Nankau VS State Of U. P. Thru Secy. Revenue - Allahabad"]- ["Zafar Mohd. vs Vaseem Saifi - Delhi"]
In civil litigation, temporary injunctions are crucial tools to maintain the status quo during disputes. A common query arises: what happens when both parties apply under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)? This scenario often occurs in property, possession, or commercial disputes where plaintiffs and defendants each seek restraining orders. This blog post breaks down the legal principles, essential ingredients, procedural requirements, and insights from key judgments to help you understand how courts handle such cross-applications.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 empower courts to grant temporary injunctions to prevent breaches of contract, property wrongs, or other irreparable harm. Rule 1 covers cases where the defendant threatens injury to the plaintiff's rights, while Rule 2 addresses restraining property breaches. These are interim remedies, not final reliefs, aimed at preserving the dispute's subject matter until trial.
Courts apply these provisions symmetrically—any party, whether plaintiff or defendant, may seek them if criteria are met. As noted, No temporary injunction should be issued unless three essential ingredients are made out, namely (1) Prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 315.
To succeed, applicants must demonstrate:- Prima facie case: A triable issue at first sight, meaning a substantial question needing investigation. Prima facie case means a substantial question which has been raised and which upon first sight needs to be investigated Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 315.- Balance of convenience: Greater hardship to the applicant if denied than to the opponent if granted.- Irreparable injury: Harm not compensable by money damages.
Courts avoid 'mini-trials' and focus on preserving status quo Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 315. In property disputes, settled possession often tips the balance Bansi Lal son of Mast Ram VS Udhey Raj son of Late Sh. Roop Chand - 2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 164.
There's no bar to counter-applications. Plaintiffs may seek injunctions (e.g., against construction Bijender Singh VS Iqbal Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4535), while defendants oppose, seek vacation, or file their own (e.g., possession claims Putta Prasada Rao VS Putta Annapurna - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1296). Courts assess each on merits post-notice.
Trial court is required to see if the plaintiff has made a prima facie case in its favor and to consider the balance of convenience but hears both Bijender Singh VS Iqbal Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4535. Equity guides decisions, favoring the deserving party to preserve status quo Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 315. In one case, both appeals against dismissal of injunction applications were heard together due to common issues Param Navdeep Singh W/o Navdeep Singh VS Mukhtyar Singh Sidhu S/o Late Surjeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 156.
Ex parte orders demand strict notice to the opposite party with application copies. Non-compliance leads to vacation: If plaintiff who has secured an exparte order of temporary injunction fails to comply... order must be vacated Roopa D. , W/o. Sri Munish Moudgil VS Rohini Sindhuri I. A. S. , W/o. Sudhir Reddy - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 221.
Once the opposite party appears (Rule 4), defects may lose significance Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2176Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1,Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1302. Courts prioritize ends of justice by deciding merits post-compliance Gurmukh Singh VS Jagmohan Singh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 877.
Appellate courts review trial discretion for perversity, not re-appreciating facts. They examine possession, ingredients, and equity Putta Prasada Rao VS Putta Annapurna - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1296Bijender Singh VS Iqbal Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4535. Interference occurs only if findings are erroneous.
While core principles remain consistent, contexts vary:- Not for money recovery: In suits for recovery based on unregistered mortgages, Order 39 doesn't apply—use Order 38 Rule 5 instead. The appellant has to seek for remedy under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and not under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. VS Blue Horizon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 577.- Trademark disputes: Plaintiffs succeed if prior user proves passing off, even against similar marks Johnson & Johnson VS Lupin Limited - 2015 Supreme(Del) 314.- Property and wills: Doctrine of lis pendens may restrain alienation without formal injunction Param Navdeep Singh W/o Navdeep Singh VS Mukhtyar Singh Sidhu S/o Late Surjeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 156.- Mortgage limits: Injunctions denied if defendants deposit disputed amounts D. B. P LIMITED VS D. H. A. F. P LIMITED - 2017 Supreme(Del) 525.- Revenue vs. civil jurisdiction: Revenue applications under M.P. Land Revenue Code Section 250 aren't maintainable during civil suits Vaishnav Sahayak Trust VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2015 Supreme(MP) 984.
These highlight that Order 39 applies where ingredients fit, but alternatives exist for specific reliefs.
Understanding these nuances can strengthen your strategy in civil suits. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
References:1. Nabo Narayan Jha VS Kamlesh Jha - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 315: Core principles.2. Bansi Lal son of Mast Ram VS Udhey Raj son of Late Sh. Roop Chand - 2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 164: Property applications.3. Bijender Singh VS Iqbal Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4535: Trial court duties.4. Putta Prasada Rao VS Putta Annapurna - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1296: Appellate review.5. Synergy Technologies VS Alvium Life Sciences - 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 134, Roopa D. , W/o. Sri Munish Moudgil VS Rohini Sindhuri I. A. S. , W/o. Sudhir Reddy - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 221: Rule 3 compliance.6. Others as cited.
#Order39CPC, #TemporaryInjunction, #CPCLaw
It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2022 the trial court while admitting the suit had also heard ex parte on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the trial court passed an ex parte interim order dated 06.09.2022 directing the parties to maintain status quo. ... Along with the plaint in suit, the private respondent no.3/ plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. duly supported....
In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it will be worth while to take a glance at the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1, 2 and 3 C.P.C. which read as under: 1. ... It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2022 the trial court while admitting the suit had also heard ex parte on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the trial court passed an ex parte interim order dated 06.09.2022 directing the #HL_STA....
On an assumption that it is an order passed under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the provisions of Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC are sought to be applied in order to enforce any disobedience of the order. This we feel may not be a proper application of law. ... It is only when there is an assumption that the interim order has been granted under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC that the consequences of holding that the disobedience has to be rectif....
On an assumption that it is an order passed under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the provisions of Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC are sought to be applied in order to enforce any disobedience of the order. This we feel may not be a proper application of law. ... It is only when there is an assumption that the interim order has been granted under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC that the consequences of holding that the disobedience has to be rectif....
Rule 2-A of CPC. ... From the perusal of the provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, it is clear that it is a provision to deal with the situation when the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has not been complied with, that includes any undertaking given by the litigant before the Court, but that does not include ... Therefore, the remedy of Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC is not available t....
Rule 1 and 2. ... Kamalaksha Nayak and Others wherein this Court held that an ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is not appealable and aggrieved party to take recourse to Order 39 Rule 4. ... 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. ... The counsel referring this judgment brought to notice of this court paragraphs 9 and 1....
Rule 1 and 2. ... 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. ... The counsel referring this judgment brought to notice of this court paragraphs 9 and 10 wherein discussion was made regarding Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 as well as Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC that if the defendant is able to demonstrate that the court has no jurisdiction, the Court may decide the jurisdiction ... p....
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants shall file objections to the I.A.No.358 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., within a period of one week. 16. ... 1. Heard Sri Vamsi Krishna B., learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. ... The trial Court shall decide the application for ....
When such being the case, the appellant has to seek for remedy under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and not under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. ... Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application, when relief is sought under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. ... It is also important to note that the Calcutta High Court in the judgment in SUNIL KAKRANIA AND ORS. referred supra discussed the scope of Order #HL_STA....
After arguments have been addressed by both sides, learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the application under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the respondent, as well as the application filed under Section 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, 1908 by the petitioner, may be taken up for consideration ... (Oral) CM APPL. 51850/2022 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. ... With the consent of the ....
1. Both appeals have arisen against the order of dismissal of applications for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and in both appeals, except properties in question, parties and issues in controversy are common, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, both appeals have been heard together.
3. Arguments of the parties are also heard on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2.
Both the parties have made their respective submissions in the pending application being I.A. No.11918/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
After demarcation report Kailash, Badrilal and respondent No. 2 were trying to dispossess the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner Trust filed a Civil Suit No. 42-A/09 for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Indore. 13th Additional District Judge, Indore by a common order dated 01.03.2013 allowed the application of the petitioner directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from suit land whereas the application of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed. Against this order respondent No. 2 filed the Misc. In the said suit petit....
However, the application filed under Order 40 Civil Procedure Code was allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.01.2012. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present civil misc.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
