Injunction Meaning in Law: Types, Three Conditions, Sections 36-42 SRA, Order 39 CPC and Supreme Court Cases

Injunction Meaning | Temporary Injunction | Perpetual Injunction | Mandatory Injunction | Order 39 CPC | Section 36-42 Specific Relief Act | Three Conditions | Dalpat Kumar | Judiciary Exam Notes | Last Updated July 2026

Injunction — Key Facts at a Glance:     Meaning: A court order directing a party to do something (mandatory injunction)   or to refrain from doing something (prohibitory injunction).     Laws that govern injunctions:   → Specific Relief Act 1963: Sections 36-42 (substantive law of injunctions)   → Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1-5 (procedure for      temporary injunctions)     Three Types: Temporary | Perpetual (Permanent) | Mandatory     Three Conditions for Temporary Injunction (ALL three must be satisfied):   1. Prima facie case in favour of the applicant   2. Irreparable injury if injunction is not granted   3. Balance of convenience in favour of granting the injunction     Leading SC cases: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) | Wander Ltd. v.   Antox India (1990) | Gujarat Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola (1995)   Mandatory injunction standard: Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990)     Nature: Equitable and discretionary — not granted as of right

\An injunction walks into almost every civil suit. Not as the main relief — usually as the fight that happens before the main fight. While the title suit over a piece of land takes years, it is the temporary injunction order passed in the first month that decides who actually stays on the property during those years. In an intellectual property dispute, it is the ad-interim injunction that stops the infringer from selling the product while the case runs. The stakes of the injunction application are often higher than the stakes of the suit itself.

For judiciary exam candidates, injunctions are tested in three ways. First, as an Order XXXIX CPC problem question: the examiner gives facts and asks whether a court should grant temporary injunction — you must apply all three conditions to those specific facts. Second, as a Specific Relief Act short note: Types, Sections 36-42, Section 41 grounds of refusal. Third, as a judgment writing question: a civil court exercising discretion on an injunction application. This article covers all three angles with the case law that examiners actually look for.

What Is an Injunction? — Definition and Nature

An injunction is a judicial order that either directs a party to perform a specific act or restrains a party from performing an act. When it directs performance of an act, it is called a mandatory injunction. When it restrains an act, it is called a prohibitory injunction. Under Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, injunctions are classified as preventive relief — they prevent harm before it occurs, unlike damages which compensate for harm after it has occurred.

Three things define the nature of an injunction. First, it is equitable — courts exercise discretion and apply principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. An injunction is never granted as a matter of right. Second, it is directed at persons, not property. An order that restrains the defendant from cutting trees is an injunction against the defendant personally — contempt of court follows if the defendant disobeys. Third, it is remedial — it is not punishment but a tool to prevent or correct a wrong.

Types of Injunction — All Three Explained

1. Temporary Injunction — Section 37(1) SRA and Order XXXIX CPC

A temporary injunction is an order that operates during the pendency of the suit — from the time it is granted until the final decree. It does not decide rights permanently. It preserves the status quo so that when the court finally decides the suit, the relief actually means something. If Ramesh threatens to demolish a house during a suit over its ownership, a temporary injunction restrains Ramesh from demolishing it until the suit is decided.

Temporary injunctions are governed procedurally by Order XXXIX Rules 1-5 of the CPC 1908. The court may grant a temporary injunction when the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated; when the defendant threatens to remove property with intent to defraud creditors; or when the defendant threatens to breach a contract or cause injury. A temporary injunction can be granted at any stage of the suit — before filing (in exceptional cases), after filing, or during the trial.

Order XXXIX Rule 3 — Ex Parte Injunction (Without Notice):     Normally, the court must give notice to the opposite party before granting   a temporary injunction. The oOrder XXXIX Rule 3 — Ex Parte Injunction (Without Notice):     Normally, the court must give notice to the opposite party before granting   a temporary injunction. The opposite party has a right to be heard.     Order XXXIX Rule 3 permits an ex parte injunction (without notice) ONLY when:   → The object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay caused     in giving notice to the opposite party.     If ex parte injunction is granted, the court must:   → Record reasons for not giving notice in the order itself   → Direct the applicant to serve copy of the application on the opposite party     immediately by registered post   → Decide the injunction application on notice within 30 days     Key exam point: An ex parte injunction is NOT a permanent order — it is   immediately followed by a hearing on notice. Courts must be doubly cautious   before granting ex parte relief — Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992).

2. Perpetual (Permanent) Injunction — Section 37(2) and Section 38 SRA

A perpetual injunction is granted by the court as part of the final decree after a full hearing of the suit on merits. It permanently restrains the defendant from asserting a right or doing an act that would be against the plaintiff’s rights. Unlike a temporary injunction which expires when the suit ends, a perpetual injunction IS the end — it is the final relief sought in the suit.

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act sets out when a perpetual injunction may be granted: to prevent the breach of an obligation arising from a contract or from law, when the breach would cause injury not compensable in money, when there would otherwise be multiple litigation over the same matter, or when the property is of special value that cannot be adequately compensated.

Aspect	Temporary Injunction	Perpetual Injunction
When granted	During pendency of suit	After final hearing — in the decree itself
Duration	Until further order or final decree	Permanent — operates indefinitely
Stage	At interlocutory stage	At the stage of final disposal
Governed by	Order XXXIX CPC (procedure) + Section 37(1) SRA	Section 38 SRA
Standard of proof	Prima facie case sufficient	Rights must be proved finally at trial
Can it be modified?	Yes — Order XXXIX Rule 4 allows variation	No — only through appeal or review
Purpose	Preserve status quo during suit	Finally determine and protect plaintiff’s rights

3. Mandatory Injunction — Section 39 SRA

A mandatory injunction compels the defendant to perform a positive act — to do something, rather than to refrain from doing something. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act allows a court to grant a mandatory injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation that the defendant is bound to perform, or to compel performance of an act that would prevent irreparable mischief that could not be prevented in any other way.

The most common mandatory injunction scenarios in practice: compelling the defendant to remove a construction that encroaches on the plaintiff’s land; compelling restoration of water supply or electricity that has been wrongfully cut off; directing restoration of a tenant who has been forcibly evicted in violation of a court order.

Mandatory Injunction — Higher Standard Than Temporary Injunction:     Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 is the leading   Supreme Court case on mandatory injunctions. The Court laid down that the   standard for granting a mandatory injunction is HIGHER than for a prohibitory   temporary injunction.     For a mandatory injunction, the applicant must establish:   1. A STRONG prima facie case — not just an arguable case. The court must be      satisfied that the applicant would succeed at trial.   2. The balance of convenience must strongly favour the applicant.   3. The applicant would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in      money if the mandatory injunction is not granted.     Why is the standard higher? Because a mandatory injunction compels positive   action. If granted wrongly and later reversed, the defendant may have been   forced to do something the court ultimately says they were not obliged to do.   The consequences of wrongly granting a mandatory injunction are more severe   than wrongly granting a prohibitory injunction.     Exam trap: Many candidates apply the three-condition temporary injunction test   to mandatory injunctions. The standard is HIGHER — cite Dorab Cawasji Warden.

Three Conditions for Granting Temporary Injunction — Order XXXIX CPC

The three conditions for granting a temporary injunction are the single most tested aspect of the injunction topic in judiciary Prelims and Mains. The Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276) made the position clear: all three conditions must be satisfied. Establishing a prima facie case alone does not entitle the applicant to an injunction. All three must concurrently exist.

Condition 1 — Prima Facie Case

The applicant must show that there is a genuine triable issue in their favour — a real question requiring investigation. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt. The Supreme Court in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79) explained: a prima facie case means a case which can be established if the evidence led in support of it were believed. The applicant need not establish their title conclusively at the injunction stage.

The distinction is between “prima facie case” and “prima facie title.” At the injunction stage, the court looks only for a substantial question that deserves trial. The plaintiff needs to show there is a bona fide dispute that is not frivolous. Whether the plaintiff ultimately wins is a question for after trial — not for the injunction stage.

Prima Facie Case — What Courts Actually Look For:     Scenario A: Plaintiff shows a registered sale deed for the property.   Defendant shows a conflicting claim through inheritance.   → Prima facie case exists — there is a genuine dispute for trial. ✅     Scenario B: Plaintiff claims right based on a forged document that has been   declared forged in a previous suit between the same parties.   → No prima facie case — the document is settled as forged. ❌     Scenario C: Plaintiff claims injunction to stop a building being constructed   on what they say is their land, but produces no title document at all.   → Courts are divided — some hold no prima facie case without any document;     others hold the claim itself is sufficient if not facially frivolous.     Key point: Prima facie case is weaker than proof on merits but stronger than   a bare assertion. Some tangible material supporting the claim is required.

Condition 2 — Irreparable Injury

The applicant must show that they would suffer injury that cannot be adequately compensated in money if the injunction is refused. The key word is “adequately” — not “impossible to compensate,” just that monetary damages would not be an adequate substitute for the specific relief sought.

Classic examples of irreparable injury: threatened demolition of a house that has historical significance; threatened publication of private photographs; imminent threat to a business’s goodwill through passing off; disposal of a unique piece of property. All of these can technically be valued in money — but money does not replace what would be lost. That is irreparable injury.

On the other hand, if the only harm is that the plaintiff will lose money — and money damages would fully compensate that loss after the suit is decided — then there is no irreparable injury. The applicant in that case is adequately protected by waiting for the final decree and then claiming damages.

Condition 3 — Balance of Convenience

Even if both conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied, the court must consider whether the balance of convenience — the comparative hardship to the two sides — favours granting the injunction. If refusing the injunction would cause the plaintiff greater harm than granting it would cause the defendant, the balance favours granting. If the reverse is true, the balance favours refusing.

The Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545 Supreme Court judgment is the leading authority on balance of convenience. The Court held that the court must compare the mischief or injury likely to be caused if the injunction is refused against the mischief or injury likely to be caused if it is granted. The court should also consider whether maintaining the status quo is preferable to disturbing it.

Balance of Convenience — How to Apply It in a Problem Question:     Step 1: What harm does the PLAINTIFF suffer if the injunction is REFUSED?   → Will there be immediate irreversible loss?   → Will the status quo be destroyed making the final decree meaningless?     Step 2: What harm does the DEFENDANT suffer if the injunction is GRANTED?   → Does the defendant have an ongoing business that will be stopped?   → Will third parties (workers, suppliers) be affected?     Step 3: Compare Step 1 against Step 2.   → If plaintiff’s harm > defendant’s harm: balance favours grant ✅   → If defendant’s harm > plaintiff’s harm: balance favours refusal ❌   → If roughly equal: courts tend to maintain status quo — usually means grant     Common exam scenario: Plaintiff seeks injunction to stop construction.   → At foundation stage: grant — little expense lost, destruction reversible   → At completion stage: refuse — demolishing a complete building causes far     greater harm than the plaintiff’s continued inconvenience during trial

Section 41 SRA — When Injunction Shall NOT Be Granted

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 lists ten situations where a court shall not grant an injunction. These are mandatory bars — they are not discretionary considerations but express statutory prohibitions. Knowing all ten is directly tested in Prelims MCQs.

Clause	Situation Where Injunction Is Barred	Why It Is Barred
(a)	To restrain any person from prosecuting a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING already pending at the commencement of the suit — unless necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings	One court cannot stop proceedings in another court of the same status. The exception is where multiple suits between the same parties on the same issue are pending — one court can then stay the others.
(b)	To restrain any party from proceeding in any court NOT SUBORDINATE to the court granting the injunction	A court can only restrain proceedings in courts below it. A High Court cannot injunct proceedings in the Supreme Court. A district court cannot injunct High Court proceedings.
(c)	To restrain any person from applying to any LEGISLATIVE BODY	The legislative process cannot be stopped by a court order. Petitioning Parliament or a state legislature is a right that no court can restrain by injunction.
(d)	To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS	Criminal law operates independently. A civil court cannot issue an injunction to stop a police investigation or criminal prosecution through an injunction in a civil suit.
(e)	To prevent breach of a contract NOT SPECIFICALLY ENFORCEABLE under the Act	Injunction follows specific performance. If the contract itself cannot be specifically enforced, an injunction to enforce it indirectly is also barred. Exception: Section 42 — negative covenant in a contract can still be enforced by injunction even if the positive covenant is unenforceable.
(f)	To prevent an act that is NOT REASONABLY CLEAR to amount to nuisance	Where the defendant’s act may or may not be a nuisance depending on circumstances and evidence, an injunction cannot be granted on a speculative basis.
(g)	To prevent a CONTINUING BREACH in which the plaintiff has ACQUIESCED	Acquiescence is a bar. If the plaintiff knew about the breach and did not object for a significant period, they cannot then seek an injunction against its continuance.
(h)	When the applicant has an EQUALLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY BY ORDINARY PROCEEDINGS — except in breach of trust	If damages or another ordinary remedy would fully and equally protect the applicant, an injunction is not necessary and should not be granted.
(i)	Where the CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT OR THEIR AGENT has been such as to disentitle them to assistance	He who seeks equity must do equity. A party who has behaved dishonestly, fraudulently, or in breach of their own obligations cannot get injunctive relief.
(j)	Where the applicant has NO PRIVATE INTEREST in the matter	Public interest alone, without a personal private interest, does not give standing for an injunction in a civil suit.

Section 42 SRA — Injunction to Enforce Negative Covenant

Section 42 is a partial exception to Section 41(e). Where a contract contains an affirmative agreement (A agrees to sing at B’s theatre) coupled with a negative covenant, express or implied (A agrees not to sing at any other theatre during the contract period), and the court cannot compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement, it may still grant an injunction to enforce the negative covenant.

The leading example from English law — Lumley v. Wagner (1852) — involved a famous soprano who agreed to sing exclusively at one theatre. The court could not compel her to sing (equity does not compel personal service). But it could and did restrain her from singing at a rival theatre. Section 42 SRA codifies this principle. The condition is that the plaintiff must not have been in breach of their own obligations under the contract.

Injunction vs Specific Performance vs Stay Order — Key Differences

Parameter	Injunction	Specific Performance	Stay Order
What it does	Directs a party to do or not do an act	Directs a party to perform their contractual obligation	Suspends the operation of a court order or proceeding
Governed by	SRA 1963 (Sections 36-42) + Order XXXIX CPC	SRA 1963 (Sections 10-25)	Order XLI Rule 5 CPC (appellate court) / Section 151 CPC (inherent power)
Who can apply	Any party to a suit where rights are threatened	Party to a contract seeking its enforcement	Party aggrieved by an order being executed
Stage	Any stage of suit (temporary) or final decree (perpetual)	Only at final disposal after full trial	After a judgment or order is passed, pending appeal
Nature	Equitable and discretionary	Equitable and discretionary	Discretionary
Conditions	Prima facie case + irreparable injury + balance of convenience	Contract must be valid, enforceable, plaintiff must have performed their part	Applicant must show that execution would create irreversible consequences OR that appeal will be defeated
Example	Stop defendant from demolishing disputed property during suit	Compel seller to execute sale deed after buyer paid full price	Stop bank from auctioning property while appeal against recovery decree is pending

Leading Supreme Court Cases on Injunction

1. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276) — All Three Conditions Are Mandatory

This is the most cited Supreme Court case on temporary injunctions. The Court held clearly that a court granting temporary injunction must apply all three conditions — prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. Establishing only one or two is not enough. The Court also cautioned that a temporary injunction should not be granted mechanically without careful examination of all three conditions. A prima facie case, by itself, does not entitle the applicant to an injunction as of right.

The Court observed that courts granting temporary injunctions must record their reasons for being satisfied on each of the three conditions. An order that merely says “prima facie case exists, injunction granted” without addressing irreparable injury and balance of convenience is inadequate and liable to be set aside in appeal.

2. Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727) — Appellate Court Should Be Slow to Interfere

The Court laid down an important principle about appeals against injunction orders. When a trial court has exercised its discretion to grant or refuse an injunction, an appellate court should not substitute its own view for the trial court’s view unless the trial court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or has ignored settled principles of law. The appellate court does not sit as a fresh court on the injunction application — it reviews for error in the exercise of discretion, not for correctness of the ultimate conclusion.

This principle matters greatly in examination because it explains why High Courts routinely refuse to interfere with trial court injunction orders unless the trial court has clearly gone wrong in applying the three conditions.

3. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545 — Balance of Convenience

A dispute over a bottling franchise agreement. Coca Cola sought an injunction to restrain Gujarat Bottling from bottling competing beverages. The Supreme Court examined the balance of convenience in detail. It held that in assessing balance of convenience, the court must consider: the extent of damage to each party; whether damages would be an adequate remedy; the effect on third parties; and whether the grant or refusal of the injunction would preserve or destroy the subject matter of the dispute.

This case is the most detailed Supreme Court analysis of the balance of convenience condition and is directly cited in injunction arguments in commercial and IP disputes.

4. Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 — Standard for Mandatory Injunction

The Supreme Court held that for a mandatory injunction, the applicant must show a “strong case” — stronger than the mere prima facie case required for a prohibitory temporary injunction. The reason: a mandatory injunction requires the defendant to positively act. If granted wrongly, undoing the act may itself be impossible or cause further harm. The stronger standard protects defendants from being compelled to perform acts they are not ultimately held liable to perform.

5. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1 — Status Quo and Irreparable Injury in IP Cases

A trademark and passing off dispute in the oral hygiene market. The Supreme Court held that in intellectual property disputes, the goodwill and reputation of a brand constitute irreparable injury that cannot be measured in money. Once a passing off or infringement is allowed to continue, the brand recognition that has been built over years may be diluted in ways that no amount of damages can remedy. The Court affirmed the grant of temporary injunction restraining Hindustan Lever from using packaging that was deceptively similar to Colgate’s.

6. Bloomberg Television Production Services v. Zee Entertainment (2024) — Fresh Restatement

In this 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the three-condition test for temporary injunctions and addressed a specific question that arises frequently in media and IP disputes: whether a court should consider the public interest when granting or refusing an injunction. The Court held that while public interest is not a standalone fourth condition, it is a factor that may be taken into account as part of the balance of convenience analysis — particularly when the injunction would affect broadcast, publication, or access to information by the general public.

The Court also cautioned against granting injunctions in broadcast or media disputes purely on the basis of a prima facie case without examining the irreparable injury and balance of convenience with care, since media injunctions affect not just the parties but also the viewing public.

Injunction in Judiciary Mains — Problem Question Format

Injunction problem questions in Mains typically present a fact situation and ask either: “Should the court grant a temporary injunction?” or “Decide the injunction application.” The format below works for both.

Step	What to Write	Common Error
Step 1	Define injunction — Section 36 SRA: preventive relief, court’s discretion, equitable remedy.	Confusing injunction with specific performance — injunction is preventive, specific performance is enforcement of contract.
Step 2	Identify the type of injunction sought — temporary (during suit), perpetual (final decree), or mandatory (compels positive act).	Calling every injunction a “temporary injunction” without checking whether the facts involve a mandatory injunction.
Step 3	Apply Condition 1 — Prima Facie Case. Do the facts show a genuine triable issue? Any document, right, or obligation that creates an arguable claim?	Treating prima facie case as requiring proof of the entire claim — it only requires a substantial arguable case.
Step 4	Apply Condition 2 — Irreparable Injury. Would refusing the injunction cause harm not compensable in money?	Assuming irreparable injury exists whenever property is involved — must actually examine whether money damages would adequately compensate.
Step 5	Apply Condition 3 — Balance of Convenience. Compare harm to plaintiff if refused against harm to defendant if granted.	Skipping the balance of convenience after finding prima facie case and irreparable injury — all three must be addressed.
Step 6	Check Section 41 SRA — does any ground of refusal apply? Is it a criminal proceeding? Has the plaintiff acquiesced?	Missing Section 41 check — a common marks-loss in Mains when the facts contain an acquiescence or criminal proceeding element.
Step 7	Cite cases — Dalpat Kumar (three conditions mandatory), Dorab Cawasji Warden (mandatory injunction higher standard), Gujarat Bottling (balance of convenience), Wander Ltd. (appellate court slow to interfere).	No case citations — standard marks deduction in most state judiciary Mains.

Frequently Asked Questions — Injunction

What is the meaning of injunction in law?

An injunction is a judicial order that directs a party to do something (mandatory injunction) or restrains a party from doing something (prohibitory injunction). Under Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, an injunction is a preventive relief granted at the discretion of the court. It is an equitable remedy — not granted as a matter of right but only when the court considers it just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. Injunctions are primarily governed by Sections 36-42 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and, for temporary injunctions, by Order XXXIX Rules 1-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

What are the three conditions for granting a temporary injunction?

The Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276) confirmed that all three conditions must be satisfied for a temporary injunction: (1) Prima facie case — the applicant must show a genuine triable issue in their favour, not a frivolous claim but a substantial question requiring trial; (2) Irreparable injury — the applicant must show that refusal of the injunction would cause harm that cannot be adequately compensated in money; (3) Balance of convenience — the court must find that the comparative hardship to the applicant if the injunction is refused outweighs the hardship to the opponent if it is granted. All three conditions must concurrently exist — establishing only one or two is not sufficient.

What is the difference between temporary injunction and perpetual injunction?

A temporary injunction is granted during the pendency of a suit to maintain the status quo until the final decree. It is governed by Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXXIX CPC. It operates only until the suit is decided and does not determine rights permanently. A perpetual injunction, governed by Section 37(2) read with Section 38 SRA, is granted as part of the final decree after the suit is heard and decided on merits. It permanently restrains the defendant from asserting a right or doing an act that violates the plaintiff’s rights. The perpetual injunction is the final relief; the temporary injunction is protective relief during the process.

When can an injunction be refused under Section 41 SRA?

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 lists ten situations where an injunction shall not be granted: to restrain judicial proceedings already pending (unless to prevent multiplicity); to restrain proceedings in a non-subordinate court; to restrain applications to legislative bodies; to restrain criminal proceedings; to prevent breach of an unenforceable contract; to prevent an act that is not clearly a nuisance; to prevent a breach the plaintiff has acquiesced in; where the plaintiff has an equally effective ordinary remedy (except in breach of trust); where the plaintiff’s own conduct disentitles them; and where the plaintiff has no private interest in the matter. These are mandatory bars, not discretionary considerations.

What is a mandatory injunction and when is it granted?

A mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is a court order that compels the defendant to perform a positive act — such as removing an encroachment, restoring supply of water or electricity, or reinstating a person to a position. Unlike prohibitory injunctions which restrain action, mandatory injunctions require action. The Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 held that the standard for granting a mandatory injunction is higher than for a prohibitory temporary injunction — the applicant must show a strong case rather than merely a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience must strongly favour the applicant.

What is ex parte injunction and when can it be granted?

An ex parte injunction is a temporary injunction granted without giving notice to the opposite party. Under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, an ex parte injunction may be granted only when the court is satisfied that the object of the injunction would be defeated by the delay involved in giving notice. The court must record in the order its reasons for not giving notice. After granting an ex parte injunction, the court must direct the applicant to serve a copy of the application on the opposite party immediately by registered post, and must hear the matter on notice within 30 days. Ex parte injunctions are exceptional — the general rule is that the opposite party must be heard before any injunction is granted.

Related Articles — Civil Procedure and Judiciary Exam Preparation

→  Temporary Injunction Under CPC — Order 39 Rules and Procedure  — Detailed procedural rules under Order XXXIX CPC for temporary injunctions

→  Mandatory Injunction — Section 39 Specific Relief Act and Dorab Cawasji Warden  — Section 39 SRA — mandatory injunction standard and leading cases

→  Res Judicata: Section 11 CPC, Constructive Res Judicata and Judiciary Exam Notes  — Finality of judgments — connects to when injunction applications become barred

→  Caveat Meaning in Law: Section 148A CPC and Judiciary Exam Notes  — Prevention of ex parte orders — the caveat tool before injunction is granted

→  RJS Mains Answer Writing: Format, Word Limit and Mistakes to Avoid  — Civil judgment writing format for injunction problem questions in Mains

→  Fundamental Rights in India: Articles 12 to 35 and Judiciary Exam Notes  — Article 226 High Court writ jurisdiction — injunction and writ both protect rights

→  BNSS vs CrPC: Complete Section-Wise Comparison for Judiciary Exam  — Section 41(d) SRA — injunction cannot restrain criminal proceedings under BNSS

→  RJS Online Coaching — Live Classes and Verified Results  — CPC civil law preparation for RJS Mains — injunction is Paper I core topic

→  Best Gujarat Judiciary Coaching — GJS Results  — GJS Mains Paper I — CPC injunction is a high-frequency question

All the best — from Jyoti Judiciary Coaching

Written by Advocate Jyoti Saxena — LLB, LLM, CS, Bar Council of Rajasthan, practising at Jaipur Family Court, Jaipur District Court, and the Rajasthan High Court. Injunction applications are argued daily in civil courts across Rajasthan. All statutory references are to the Specific Relief Act 1963 and Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as amended. Supreme Court citations verified from AIR, SCC Online, and main.sci.gov.in. Contact: +91 99290 96546 | jyotijudiciary.com

All Section 36-42 SRA references based on the Specific Relief Act 1963. Order XXXIX CPC references based on the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. All Supreme Court case citations verified from AIR and SCC.