RATNA PAUL Vs. SUBHASH RANJAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The granting of temporary injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff vide impugned order dated 26-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2 at Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 29/2000 arising out of T. N. No. 43/2000 is the sole subject matter of this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

(2.) Needless to remind that injunction is a form of equitable relief and has to be adjusted in the aid of equity and justice to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Granting of injunction being itself a discretionary matter, there is no straight jacket formula in the matter of granting or refusing temporary injunction. Depending on each case on its own facts, three cardinal principles governing grant of temporary injunction have been accepted, namely (i) a strong prima facie case, (ii) the balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury. Ordinarily in deciding a case for seeking temporary injunction the Court must be satisfied that (a) whether a strong prima facie case, (b) the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e. it would cause greater inconvenience to him if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the opposite Party or the persons claiming through the Opposite Party would be put to if temporary injunction is granted and (c) whether the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. With the first condition as sine-quo-non, the petitioner must satisfy at least two conditions conjunctively.

(3.) Situated with such propositions, Woodroffe has correctly observed in his book "Law relating to injunction" (12th Edn. page 101) 'the power which the Court possesses of granting injunctions whether interlocutory or perpetual (however salutary) should be very cautiously exercised and only upon clear and satisfactory grounds, otherwise it may work the greater injury'.