Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh

Facts

The dispute concerned a residential house in Jaipur and was the fourth round of litigation between the parties. The first appellant had obtained a court-decreed sale deed in respect of the house for Rs. 51,000 in 1983. The respondent (Prahlad Singh) filed suit alleging the transaction was vitiated by fraud and sought a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing him. Earlier applications for interim injunction had been rejected by the trial court and the High Court, but the High Court ultimately granted an ad interim injunction, which the appellants challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• What are the conditions a court must be satisfied of before granting a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?
• Whether the High Court was justified in granting an ad interim injunction restraining the appellants from taking possession, given a court-executed sale deed and earlier refusals of injunction.

Arguments

The respondent contended that the sale deed was obtained by fraud and that he would be irreparably prejudiced if dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, justifying interim protection. The appellants contended that a final, court-executed sale deed already existed, that prior injunction applications had been rejected, that the respondent's conduct lacked good faith, and that any loss could be adequately compensated in damages, so no injunction should issue.

Held

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's refusal of the temporary injunction. The Court held that a temporary injunction is a discretionary, equitable relief that can be granted only when the applicant satisfies three conditions: a prima facie case, i.e. a serious disputed question to be tried with a probability of being entitled to relief; that refusal would cause irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated in damages and for which there is no other remedy; and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction. On the facts, the Court found that the respondent's conduct was inconsistent with good faith, that any loss could be compensated by damages for use and occupation, and that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act adequately protected the respondent against unlawful alienation. The High Court had committed a manifest error in granting the injunction without applying these settled tests.

Ratio decidendi

A court may grant a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC only when the applicant simultaneously establishes a prima facie case, that it would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief; the power is discretionary and must be exercised on sound judicial principles, not merely on the assertion of a claim.

Significance

A leading authority on the principles governing temporary injunctions, it crystallised the triple test — prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience — and defined a prima facie case as a substantial question raised bona fide which needs investigation and a decision on merits. It has been consistently followed and applied in later Supreme Court and High Court decisions on interim injunctions and remains foundational to the law on interim relief in Indian civil procedure.

Related