Principles Governing Temporary Injunction
Before granting of the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied:
(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money.
(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest. Prima facie case.–
Explaining the ambit and scope of the connotation “prima facie” case, in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, MANU/SC/0081/1957 : AIR 1958 SC 79: (1958) I LLJ 247 SC: (1958) 1 SCR 514, the Supreme Court observed:
“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed while determining whether a case is prima facie one or not, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence.”
In other words, the Court must be satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the applicant and on the facts before it there is a probability of the applicant being established to the relief claimed by him.
In Mandati Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, MANU/SC/7567/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 2291, it is held that while considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. The Court dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties.
In Paidsetti Bhanknarayna v. Paidsetti Rajeshwar Rao, AIR 1999 Ori 92 the Court observed that it is not necessary that the plaintiff should establish his title to the property in suit. It is enough for him to show that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the right which he alleges and can satisfy the Court that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question be disposed of.