In many civil disputes, compensation after the fact isn't enough — someone might be about to sell disputed property, demolish a structure, or breach a contract in a way money can't fully undo. An injunction is the remedy for exactly this: a court order restraining a party from doing, or continuing, a particular act.
Temporary vs. permanent injunctions
A temporary or interim injunction, sought under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is granted while a suit is still pending, to preserve the situation until the case is finally decided. A permanent injunction, by contrast, is granted only at the conclusion of the trial, as final relief.
What a court actually looks for
Granting an interim injunction isn't automatic — courts weigh a consistent set of factors before doing so.
- A prima facie case — a genuine, arguable case on the merits, not proof of the full claim
- Balance of convenience — whether refusing the injunction would harm the applicant more than granting it would harm the other side
- Irreparable injury — harm that can't be adequately compensated by money later
- Conduct and delay — courts are reluctant to assist an applicant who waited too long before seeking relief
Ex parte injunctions
In genuinely urgent situations, a court can grant a temporary injunction without first hearing the other side, known as an ex parte order. This is meant to be the exception rather than the default, and is typically revisited quickly once the opposing party has had a chance to respond.
The takeaway
Interim injunction applications are often decided quickly and on limited evidence, so having the strongest available documents ready before filing — not scrambled together afterward — is usually what determines whether the order is granted.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every matter has its own facts — please consult directly for guidance specific to your situation.
Related Reading
