Temporary Injunction is an interim court order granted during the pendency of a suit to restrain a party from doing an act or to direct a party to do an act, in order to preserve the status quo until the suit is decided on merits. Under Indian law, temporary injunctions are governed by Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and are granted based on the three-part test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Legal definition
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the circumstances for grant of temporary injunctions:
Order 39 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..."
Order 39 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..."
Order 39 Rule 3 — Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party: "The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party."
How courts have interpreted this term
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [(1990) Supp SCC 727]
The Supreme Court established the standard of appellate review for temporary injunction orders. The Court held that the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion exercised on well-established principles, and that the appellate court should not interfere with such exercise unless it is shown that the trial court proceeded on a wrong principle, ignored material on record, or the decision was such that no reasonable court would have reached it. This "perversity standard" remains the benchmark for challenging temporary injunction orders.
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719]
The Supreme Court articulated the three essential conditions for granting a temporary injunction: (1) the plaintiff must make out a prima facie case — meaning the plaint must disclose a triable issue; (2) the balance of convenience must favour the plaintiff — meaning the plaintiff would suffer greater inconvenience from refusal than the defendant would from the grant; and (3) the plaintiff must demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted — meaning the injury cannot be adequately compensated in money damages.
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden [(1990) 2 SCC 117]
The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "irreparable injury" in the context of temporary injunctions. The Court held that "irreparable injury" does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury — it means that the injury must be substantial and could not be adequately remedied by damages. The Court also held that the three conditions are not rigid compartments but are interrelated factors to be weighed together.
Why this matters
The temporary injunction is arguably the most consequential interim remedy in Indian civil practice. In disputes involving property, intellectual property, commercial competition, and family matters, the party that obtains a temporary injunction often holds a decisive advantage for the duration of the litigation — which, given the pace of Indian civil courts, can extend over several years.
For litigants, the practical impact of a temporary injunction frequently exceeds that of the eventual decree. In property disputes, a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo effectively freezes the dispute for the duration of the suit, preventing construction, alienation, or encroachment. In trademark disputes, an interim injunction against a competitor using a confusingly similar mark can determine the market outcome before the case is tried.
For practitioners, the temporary injunction application is often the first substantive hearing in a suit and requires careful preparation. The three-part test requires that the plaint, supporting affidavits, and documentary evidence be marshalled to demonstrate a prima facie case on day one. Courts increasingly require detailed applications supported by specific evidence rather than vague assertions.
A critical procedural aspect is the ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3. An ex parte injunction — granted without notice to the defendant — is available only where delay would defeat the object of the injunction. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that ex parte injunctions should be the exception, not the rule. Where a caveat has been filed under Section 148A CPC, the court must hear the caveator before granting any ex parte order, which provides defendants a critical safeguard against surprise injunction orders.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Counterpart:
Related procedures:
Broader concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What are the three conditions for granting a temporary injunction?
The three conditions, established in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992), are: (1) prima facie case — the plaintiff must show a triable issue based on the plaint and supporting evidence; (2) balance of convenience — the court must be satisfied that greater inconvenience would result from refusing the injunction than from granting it; and (3) irreparable injury — the plaintiff must demonstrate that the harm cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Can a temporary injunction be granted without hearing the other side?
Yes, in exceptional cases. Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court may grant an ex parte temporary injunction where the delay caused by giving notice would defeat the object of the injunction. However, the court must record reasons for dispensing with notice, and the matter must be listed for hearing within 30 days. If a caveat has been filed, the court must hear the caveator before granting any ex parte order.
How long does a temporary injunction last?
A temporary injunction remains in force until a specified date, until the disposal of the suit, or until further orders of the court. It can be modified, vacated, or extended at any stage of the proceedings. If the suit is decided, the temporary injunction merges with the decree — either a permanent injunction is granted or the suit is dismissed.
What is the remedy if a temporary injunction is wrongly granted or refused?
An order granting or refusing a temporary injunction is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The appeal must be filed within 30 days. The appellate court will review the order using the Wander Ltd. standard — it will interfere only if the trial court applied wrong principles, ignored material evidence, or reached a conclusion that no reasonable court would reach.
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.