Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) governs the grant of temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders, empowering courts to restrain a party from committing an act or to maintain the status quo during the pendency of a suit. Under Indian law, a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC can only be granted when the applicant satisfies the three-part test of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
Legal definition
Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains five rules dealing with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders:
Rule 1 — Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted: Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise —
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors;
(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
Rule 2 — Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach: In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of.
Rule 3 prescribes that before granting an injunction, the court shall direct notice to the opposite party, except where delay would defeat the purpose of granting the injunction (ex parte injunction). Rule 3 mandates that reasons must be recorded in writing for granting ex parte relief.
How courts have interpreted this term
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719]
The Supreme Court established the authoritative three-part test for granting temporary injunctions. The Court held that the applicant must demonstrate: (i) a prima facie case — the existence of a bona fide dispute that raises a triable issue; (ii) irreparable injury — that the applicant would suffer harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; and (iii) balance of convenience — that greater inconvenience would be caused to the applicant by refusing the injunction than to the opponent by granting it.
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727]
The Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction is a matter of discretion, and an appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown that the trial court acted capriciously or on extraneous considerations, or ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant of injunctions.
Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai [(2006) 5 SCC 282]
The Court emphasised that compliance with Rule 3 is mandatory for ex parte injunctions. An ex parte injunction granted without recording reasons in writing and without directing the applicant to serve copies of the application and supporting documents on the opposite party is liable to be vacated.
Types of temporary injunctions
- Temporary injunction (Rules 1 & 2): Granted during the pendency of a suit to maintain the status quo or prevent injury. It remains in force until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
- Ex parte injunction (Rule 3): Granted without notice to the opposite party in cases of extreme urgency where delay would defeat the purpose. It is accompanied by mandatory procedural safeguards.
- Ad interim injunction: An immediate, short-term order granted to protect the applicant's interest while the court takes time to hear full arguments on the injunction application. It operates for the intervening period until the injunction application itself is decided.
Why this matters
Temporary injunctions are among the most frequently sought remedies in Indian civil litigation. From property disputes to commercial disagreements, the ability to obtain an order maintaining the status quo during the pendency of a suit can be decisive. In many cases, the interim order effectively determines the practical outcome of the litigation, because the party in possession or the party restrained from acting often has a significant advantage by the time the suit concludes years later.
For practitioners, understanding the interplay of the three conditions — prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience — is essential for both applying for and opposing injunctions. The Supreme Court has clarified that all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively; establishing a prima facie case alone is insufficient if the balance of convenience does not favour the applicant.
A critical procedural requirement is Rule 3's mandate regarding ex parte injunctions. Courts frequently vacate ex parte orders where the procedural safeguards of Rule 3 were not followed, including the requirement that the applicant serve the opponent with copies of the application and supporting documents and file a service affidavit. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the ex parte order being treated as a nullity.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Specific types:
Related procedures:
Frequently asked questions
What are the three conditions for granting a temporary injunction?
The three conditions are: (i) prima facie case — the applicant must show a bona fide dispute raising a triable issue; (ii) irreparable injury — the applicant must demonstrate harm that cannot be compensated by damages; and (iii) balance of convenience — the court must be satisfied that greater inconvenience would result from refusing the injunction than from granting it. All three must be satisfied cumulatively.
Can a temporary injunction be granted without notice to the other party?
Yes, under Order XXXIX Rule 3, an ex parte injunction may be granted where the court is satisfied that delay caused by notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction. However, the court must record reasons in writing, and the applicant must immediately serve the opponent with copies of the application, affidavit, plaint, and supporting documents. Non-compliance can lead to vacation of the ex parte order.
How long does a temporary injunction last?
A temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX operates during the pendency of the suit and continues until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the court. It does not survive the suit — once the suit is decided and a decree is passed, the temporary injunction ceases to operate.
Can a temporary injunction be modified or vacated?
Yes. Under Order XXXIX Rule 4, a party may apply to the court to discharge, vary, or set aside a temporary injunction. The court may modify or vacate the injunction on a change of circumstances or if it was obtained by suppression of material facts. An order granting, refusing, or vacating a temporary injunction is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.