PREM CHAND Vs. MANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether interference by the High Court under Section 115 CPC is justified, where there is a concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below disposing the interim injunction application that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case ?

(2.) This question has emerged in the following circumstances-

(3.) An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of a preventive relief granted to a litigant quia timet, i.e. because he fears future possible injury. A temporary injunction is of two types one granted without finally disposing of the application for temporary injunction to operate immediately till the disposal of the said application and the other granted while finally disposing of the main application generally till the disposal of the suit. While former is generally classed as ad interim injunction, the latter is generally called temporary injunction. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant by way of interim relief what could never be granted in the main suit itself. Thus an interim injunction granted during the pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit. Plaintiff who seeks temporary injunction should not only show the prima facie case and balance of convenience but also irreparable injury and also that the case falls within he exceptional category of cases wherein the Courts should intervene immediately in granting relief which may in fact, cover the entire relief that should have been granted in the suit itself.