Injunction originates from English Jurisprudence and is derived from French word “injungere” which means “to join.” An injunction is an order of the court which makes a person to do or abstain him/ her from doing an act that is required for justice, absence of which will result in contradiction of good faith and conscience. Injunction is granted basically for restoring the rights of a party whose such rights have been violated. It is granted when there is no remedy as to provide such party with neither monetary nor compensatory damages. The principles of Equity and Natural Justice are followed while granting an injunction. 
Statue dealing with injunctions
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the provisions for injunctions in part three of the act. In chapter VII of the Act, under Section 36, general injunctions have been described and Section 37 of the Act lays down definition or description of temporary and perpetual injunctions.
Temporary/ Interim Injunction
It has been defined under Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as, “Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further order of the court, and they maybe granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).” Section 94 (c) and (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains provisions according to which the court may, in order to prevent the achievement of the ends of justice defeated grant a temporary injunction or do such other interim orders which the Court seems to judge to be fair and correct. The procedure for getting a temporary injunction has been provided for by order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, an injunction is a fair discretionary relief which cannot be granted when equally effective relief can be obtained any other usual method or procedure.
The purpose of the interim or temporary order is to protect the plaintiff from injury by claiming his right which he could not adequately compensate in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty is resolved in him favour at the hearing.
The granting of interim injunction is based on three factors, which are prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. The court explained these as;
- There is a serious disputed question raised in the court and that there is an act on the facts before the court probability that he is entitled to the relief the plaintiff / defendant.
- The court’s interference is necessary to protect the people from some of the types of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or danger would arise before the legal right set at trial.
- That comparative hardship at malice or inconvenience that is likely to occur due to the withholding of the command will be greater than it probably would be granted.
‘A’ is a retailer with a food processing plant in Bandra, Mumbai, India. In front of his factory, one of the adjacent factory workers (‘B’) started dumping waste, which eventually led to the food being spoiled. ‘A’ filed ‘B’, in which the court agreed to a temporary injunction, which prevented ‘B’ from dumping more waste.
- From this illustration, it is clear that ‘A’ suffers from a significant problem as it indirectly affects its livelihood. Therefore, it is clear that granting an order is important.
- In the above illustration, no matter who reads it, it is a common statement that the plaintiff is harming, which outweighs the scale of justice. Therefore, it is clear that the ease of balance towards the Plaintiff is tilted.
- In a situation where the court did not agree to grant the temporary order in favour of the Plaintiff, the food products in his factory would be destroyed, thereby affecting his income and causing great loss. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff would have suffered irreparable damage to his goods.
In the matter of Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara, it was held, an interim injunction can only be granted if a person who wants to obtain an order has a closed right that is capable of being enforced by order. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is entitled to a temporary injunction even against his fellow splitters to protect his protection owned when living exclusively in the warehouses and doing business on it, this was held in I P Bhankanarayana v. PRajeshwar Rao. When a foreign buyer threatens jointly with members of the temporary order from an undivided family should be refrained from taking possession even if such an order equals the expulsion of the foreign buyer.
In the case of Nawab Mir Barkat Ali v. Nawab Zulfiquar, the court laid down certain principles for granting interim order of which the court must be satisfied:
- that the applicant’s case is made prima facie to go in the trial court.
- that the contention should be bona fide between the parties and also on which side the balance of convenience will lie in the event of success, if there is no grant of injunction.
- that the plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss.
- and interim injunction is not allowed where permanent injunction cannot be granted.
A temporary injunction is a preliminary relief that seeks to protect the subject in the existing condition, without the defendant’s interference or threat. It is intended to protect the plaintiff from disposing of, or to destroy or damage his property (subject), or against any injury to the plaintiff. The primary reason behind a temporary order is to protect the interests of an individual or entity until the final decision is made. A temporary injunction, if granted, remains for a specified period or until the court deems fit.
Edited by Pushpamrita Roy
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 As defined under Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company, 1995(5) SCC 545.
Dalpat Kumar v. Pralhad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 27
AIR 1997 SC 2674
AIR 1991 Ori 92
AshimRanjan Das v. Bimla Ghosh, AIR 1992 Cal 44.
 AIR 1982 A.P. 384.