Civil Procedure Law

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh

AIR 1993 SC 276; (1992) 1 SCC 719

Facts

A dispute arose over possession and rights in immovable property.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or dealing with the property during the suit.
The trial court considered the competing claims concerning:
Possession;
Title documents;
Conduct of the parties; and
Likely consequences pending trial.
An injunction was granted or restored on the view that the plaintiffs had raised a question requiring adjudication.
The defendants contended that the courts had treated the existence of a triable issue as sufficient without properly applying:
Prima facie case;
Balance of convenience; and
Irreparable injury.
The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Temporary injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy.
The applicant must establish all three requirements:
Prima facie case: a serious, bona fide question requiring trial and a probability of entitlement, not proof of final success.
Balance of convenience: greater comparative hardship would arise from refusal than from grant.
Irreparable injury: injury not adequately compensable by damages or another ordinary remedy.
A prima facie case is not merely:
A plausible allegation;
A disputed question; or
Institution of a suit.
The court must consider the apparent strength of the legal right.
Irreparable injury does not mean injury impossible to repair physically; it means inadequacy of monetary compensation.
The relief is also governed by equitable considerations:
Conduct;
Delay;
Suppression;
Acquiescence; and
Maintenance of a lawful status quo.
The court must record reasons showing consideration of each requirement.

The lower court had placed excessive emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs had raised a dispute worthy of trial.
But every non-frivolous suit contains a question for trial.
That alone does not justify restraining the opposing party before final adjudication.
The plaintiffs had to demonstrate an apparent legal right and show why immediate protection was necessary.
The Supreme Court examined the possession and title material and found that the plaintiffs’ asserted right was not sufficiently established at the interim stage.
It also considered whether any potential loss could be addressed through:
Damages;
Restitution;
Final possession relief; or
Other protective orders.
The courts had not adequately compared hardship to both sides.
An injunction may itself cause serious injustice by preventing a person apparently in lawful possession from using property for years.
Therefore, judicial caution is required.
The applicant cannot rely on general expressions such as “irreparable loss” without connecting them to concrete facts.
Since the three tests had not been cumulatively satisfied, interim protection was unjustified.

The Supreme Court set aside the temporary injunction.
It reiterated that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are separate and cumulative requirements.
Use this case for: A triable issue alone does not justify injunction; all three established tests must be proved.