The legal maxim, "Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium", i.e. "Where There Is A Right, There Is A Remedy" is one of the most important source for derivation of various legal principles. There are various kinds of remedies attached to a legal proceeding like monetary compensation, imprisonment, injunction, specific performance etc. Injunction is one of these remedies, mainly based on the principles of equity and good conscience. It is a relief provided by the court, either requiring the party to do something or refraining from doing something.

In short, an injunction has three essential ingredients: presence of a judicial proceeding, the relief granted is in the form of a restraint, and restrained act must be wrongful on the grounds of equity. It prevents an opposite party from doing certain kinds of acts or causes them to do such acts so that they do not cause any wrong to the plaintiff. Injunction in nature is a discretionary relief not a matter of right. Injunction, in practice is one of the powerful tools used for safeguarding rights of a person or entity. It can be used to stop someone from violating another's rights and also to require doing of an act to enforce another person's rights.

Injunctions are mainly of two kinds: Temporary and Permanent. While interim injunction finds its use in scenario where restriction is imposed before pronouncement of final decision, permanent injunction is conclusive in nature and can be granted even at the conclusion of the case. Order -XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, only deals with temporary injunction while Specific Relief Act, 1963 contains provisions regarding permanent injunction.

Purpose: The primary purpose is to prevent injustice during the pendency of litigation. It serves as a leveler between preservation of the rights of the parties and administration of justice. The main purpose of temporary injunction is to restrict someone from causing any harm to a party to suit during the pendency of legal process.

• Safeguarding Rights of parties involved in the suit
• Maintain Status Quo: To restore the situation to one before arising of the dispute
• Maintaining Fairness: To maintain fairness between the parties during the legal process.
   

 Legal Framework:
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, injunction is dealt in various provisions like:

• Section 91 – Institution of a suit for a declaration and injunction in cases of public nuisance or other wrongful acts
• Section 94 – Temporary injunctions granted by the courts to meet the ends of justice
• Order XXXIX – Specifically deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders

Order 39 Rule 1: Circumstances under which temporary injunction may be granted by court:

1. Property which is subject matter of the dispute is prone to danger of being wasted, damaged or isolated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of decree
2. Defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with the intention to defraud his creditors
3. Defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or cause any other injury to the plaintiff with regard to the property in dispute
4. Defendant is likely to commit breach of peace or contract or otherwise (Order 39 Rule 2)
5. Where in the opinion of the court, it is required in interest of justice.
    

Rule 2: Injunction in cases of breach of contract or like injury. In a suit to restrain defendant from committing a breach of contract or other like injury, plaintiff may, at any time after the starting of the suit, make application to the Court for an injunction for restraining the opposite party from committing such breach. No injunction could be granted if prima facie it appears that:

• It is not a case for specific performance
• An injunction would be infructuous
• Injunction cannot be granted where performance of such contract cannot be specifically enforced

Rule 2A: Consequences of Disobedience or Breach of an injunction.

1. Property of wrongdoer is attached
2. Detention in civil prison not exceeding 3 months
3. Limit of attachment: Not more than 1 year. If disobedience continues, court can order sale of the property

Case: Ram Prasad Singh vs Subodh Prasad Singh – Even agents/servants of the defendant can be liable under O39 R2A if they had knowledge of the injunction. Rule 3: Ex-parte Injunction Applicant must issue notice to the opposite party before injunction. Court may still grant it ex parte in exceptional circumstances. Case: Union of India v. Era Educational Trust – Guidelines:

• Presence of irreparable mischief
• If not granted, it will lead to injustice
• Application should not be maliciously motivated
• General principles of balance and irreparable loss

Rule 3A: Court must dispose the injunction application on merits within 30 days of granting ex parte injunction. If not, reasons must be recorded. The injunction becomes inoperative after expiry but not illegal. Rule 4: Discharge and Variation of Order of Injunction

• If false or misleading statement was made in application or affidavit, and injunction was granted without notice, court must vacate it
• If injunction was granted after hearing, variation or discharge only allowed if there is change in circumstances or undue hardship

Rule 5: Injunction on Corporation An injunction directed to a corporation binds both the corporation and its officers/members whom it seeks to restrain. D. Implications within Civil Litigation – Power to grant injunction is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Case: M/S Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company Case: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh – Court must use sound discretion. The 3 requirements:

1. Prima Facie Case – Must be based on merit and capable of adjudication
2. Irreparable Loss – Where damage cannot be adequately compensated in money
3. Balance of Convenience – Greater inconvenience from withholding the injunction than granting it

Case: ManoharLal vs Seth HiraLal – Introduced bona fide dispute as a factor. Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Provides for appeal against orders under rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, 10 of Order 39
  Challenges faced in application:Case: Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra – Discretionary power must be used cautiously and to secure justice even in urgent situations.

Applications for temporary injunction are a sort of dilemma for court. If the application is genuine, it can be a great help to applicant but if the application of such a nature which does not warrant immediate attention of the court and can cause delay in the proceedings which can cause hardships to the opposite party. While granting an injunction, the court's primary goal is to protect the interests of all parties involved.[13] Sometimes if the status quo is maintained, it can cause undue disadvantage to the defendant. This principle was recognized in the case of Ganga Bricks Udhyog v. Jai Bhagwan Swarup.[14]

Interlocutory Orders

1. Definition

   The word "interlocutory" means something which is not final or definitive or which relates to intervening thing. So, an interlocutory order is the order which only settles some intervening matter relating to the cause without going into further issues.
   • It is somewhat a little subset of temporary injunction.
   • It is a decree or judgment given provisionally during the course of a legal action.
   • These do not deal with the finality of the case but settle subordinate issues pertinent to the main subject matter.
   • Usually prohibitory in nature and intended to protect the subject matter or prevent any loss.
   • Exists both in civil law as well as in criminal law.
   Whenever a court is satisfied that it is necessary to decide a matter, then the court can make an interlocutory order due to the time-sensitivity of those particular issues. Interlocutory proceedings are independent and remain distinct from the main dispute. They are preliminary steps taken for facilitating just and fair disposal of the main dispute. The Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana held that the term "interlocutory order" refers to an order purely interim or temporary in nature which does not adjudicate or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of the parties.
    

2. Purpose

   • Passed in matters of urgent requirement.
   • Intended to secure ends necessary for the disposal of the case.
   • Helps aid the parties and protect the subject matter from destruction or loss.
    

3. Legal Framework

   • Order 39 Rule 6 - Power of court to order Interim Sale: The court can order the sale of perishable goods which are the subject matter of the dispute.
   • Rule 7 - Detention or Inspection of the subject matter: The court may order the detention, preservation, or inspection of the disputed property and may authorize individuals to enter the premises for this purpose.
   • Rule 8 - Conditions for passing order under Rule 6 and 7:
     • The applicant applies after the institution of the suit.
     • Notice is given to the other parties in the suit.
     • The other parties are provided a fair chance to argue.
     • Exception: If delay causes injustice, notice can be excused.
   • Rule 9 - Land Paying Revenue: Court can order sale of land if there is neglect in paying government revenue or rent. Sale proceeds can be used to compensate defaults.
   • Rule 10 - Deposit of money in court: If one party claims they hold money or items in trust, the court can order its deposit until dispute is resolved.
    

4. Implications in Civil Proceedings

   • Focuses on specific issues arising during proceedings.
   • Protects parties' rights during pendency of case.
   • Not to be passed if it prematurely judges sensitive issues.
   • Common in Indian judiciary, reflecting rights awareness but also contributing to pendency.

5. Challenges in Application

   "Justice delayed is justice denied"  is one of the most realistic quotes regarding the Indian judiciary. Delay in imparting justice has frustrated the judiciary for a long time. This delay is sometimes caused due to unreasonable interlocutory applications. Motions for interim reliefs severely affect the original suit. Although, there are many genuine cases implying necessity regarding the application of interlocutory orders, many frivolous or unreasonable applications are often aimed at the stay of proceedings in a suit.
   
   The practice of filling Interlocutory applications has become a matter of routine for the advocates which are often utilized to lengthen the proceedings in a suit. It is one of the serious concerns relating to credibility and sanctity of judiciary. The law commission of India in its report[18] had proposed amendments in CPC to avoid such practice by imposition of heavy costs on applicants forwarding such unreasonable or frivolous applications.

Conclusion:
It can be summarized that temporary injunction or interlocutory order is  a sort of interim remedy which helps in maintaining the status quo of the parties in relation to subject matter of dispute while the case is pending. These are basic tools to protect a party from any prospective injustice resulting from violation of his or her rights.  These ensure fairness, equity and conscience in the imparting of justice.

End-Notes:

1. Sarkar. Code of Civil Procedure. 12th ed., vol. 2, Lexis Nexis, 2017.
2. Praveen Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Visteon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (1) CTC 542
3. AIR1983PAT278
4. Morgan Stanley vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225
5. AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1573
6. Kudithi Lakshma Reddy v. Gantla Satti Reddy, AIR 2002 AP 418
7. Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2006) 5 SCC 282
8. M/S Gujarat Pottling Co. Ltd. & Ors v. Coca Cola Company & Ors. [1995] SC, 5 (SC)
9. Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. AIR1993SC276B
10. ManoharLal vs Seth HiraLal 1962 AIR 527
11. Shadi vs. Anrup Singh, ILR 112 All 436
12. Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1975
13. Mandati Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra MANU/SC/7567/2008
14. AIR1982ALL333
15. 1977 AIR 2185
16. Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, 1977 AIR 2185
17. Sub Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, 1991 AIR 1598
18. 'Costs in Civil Litigation' Report No.240