CPCTemporary injunctionSupreme Court of India

Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh

AIR 1993 Supreme Court 276; (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71919922 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A dispute arose between the parties regarding possession of immovable property. The plaintiff (Prahlad Singh) sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX to restrain the defendant from dispossessing him pending trial.
Issue
What are the conditions that must be satisfied for grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC?
Held
The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief governed by equitable principles.
Principle
Three conditions must be satisfied for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and (3) irreparable injury if injunction is not granted. All three must coexist.
Cite this

Facts

  • A dispute arose between the parties regarding possession of immovable property
  • The plaintiff (Prahlad Singh) sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX to restrain the defendant from dispossessing him pending trial
  • The trial court granted the injunction
  • The defendant (Dalpat Kumar) challenged the injunction, arguing the conditions for grant were not satisfied
  • The matter reached the Supreme Court on the question of the correct legal test for temporary injunctions

Issue

  1. What are the conditions that must be satisfied for grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC?

Held

  • The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief governed by equitable principles
  • Three conditions must be satisfied:
  • All three conditions are cumulative, not alternative. Failure on any one is fatal.
  • The court exercises judicial discretion, not arbitrary power
  • The injunction is an equitable remedy; the applicant must come with clean hands

Ratio decidendi

Temporary injunction under Order XXXIX requires satisfaction of three cumulative conditions: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court at the interlocutory stage does not decide merits but only evaluates whether a triable issue exists and whether the equitable conditions are met.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: The foundational Indian authority on the three-pronged test for temporary injunction.
  • Part B: Directly applicable to every injunction problem in Part C of exams.
  • Contrast with: American Cyanamid (1975): the UK equivalent (serious question to be tried + balance of convenience). Indian courts follow Dalpat Kumar as the primary test.
  • Key line: "Three conditions for temporary injunction: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable injury. All three must coexist."

Cite this

Citation

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 Supreme Court 276; (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 719

Reported: AIR 1993 SC 276; (1992) 1 SCC 719. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.