Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | O. 39 Temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders

* Rule 1 & 2 – Court has to see whether there is bon fide contest between parties and fair point for trial – for considering grant of injunction , court need not to examine merits of the case closely.
GLR 2000 (4) 2644

* Party raising construction against municipal by-laws – neighbor has right to get injunction restraining party proceeding with construction from further raising his unauthorized construction.
AIR 1985 Delhi 293 (Omkar Nath v. Ram nath Gupta)

* Rule 3 – Ex-parte interim injunction – party who secured such order – cannot take undue advantage of clause (a) (b) of R.3 – sending copy of order to opposite party and filing an affidavit stating that copies of aforesaid is delivered.
2000(6) Supreme Today 269

* R.3 – Ex-parte injunction- Service of order – time of service is material - such order becomes operative after the service on such party.
1999(2) GCD 971 : 1999 (1) GLH 24

* Grant of Injunction – Need not to establish prima facie case – court not to ascertain whole merit of case.
2000(3) GLR 2759 : 2000(3) GLH 620

* Unlawful possession – No injunction can be granted against lawful owner – in favour of a person in unlawful possession.
1995 (3) SCC 33

* Trespasser – A wrong does cannot be assisted by court in continuance of the wrong by means of the grant of equitable relief. A trespasser may be entitled to claim some relief against third party not having a better title then him but not against the true owner.
1994 (5) SCC 547 – AIR 1986 SC 1165 – AIR 1972 SC 2299 – AIR 1983 SC 1271 – AIR 1986 Kant. 77.

* Specific Relief Act S. 41(j) – Injunction – personal right – interest or right not shown to be in existence – cannot be protected by injunction – injunction should no be issued against the true owner – pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not be an excuse to claim injunction.
CCC VIII, 1994(2) SC 673

* Appreciation of evidence – Approach of court appreciating prima facie evidence, erroneous at the stage of hearing.
1997 (1) GLH UJ 3(3)

* Trial court come to conclusion by a single line that balance of convenience was in favour of Plaintiff – Order was liable to be set aside.
CCC 2002 (4) 359 Guj.

* Interim order – is in aid of final order and not vice versa – suit rendered infructous – refusal to dismiss it to keep alive interim order passed – not proper.
AIR 2004 SC 2093 (Shipping Corporation v. Machado Brothers)

* An injunction cannot be issued in favour of trespasser as against the true owner.
1994 Civil L.J. 817 : 1994 (2) CCC 93 (Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India.)