Application for Temporary Injunction under Order XXXIX CPC

Introduction

An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is the most frequently moved interlocutory application in Indian civil practice. Its grant rests on the trinity laid down in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Each limb must be pleaded with specificity and supported by documents — bare assertions are routinely refused. Where ex parte relief is sought, compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 (recording of reasons and immediate communication) and the Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 safeguards is mandatory.

When to Use This Prompt

• Suits for specific performance where the defendant threatens to alienate the suit property.
• Suits for permanent injunction restraining trespass, encroachment or interference with possession.
• Intellectual property suits seeking restraint against infringement.
• Suits to restrain invocation of a bank guarantee or termination of a contract pending adjudication.

Statutory & Case-Law Backdrop

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (grounds for temporary injunction), Rule 2A (consequence of disobedience), Rule 3 (notice before granting injunction, ex parte exception), Rule 4 (vacation of injunction), Section 151 (inherent powers). Leading judgments: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 (three-fold test); Gujarat Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola (1995) 5 SCC 545 (negative covenants); Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161 (recording reasons for ex parte orders); Best Sellers Retail (India) v. Aditya Birla Nuvo (2012) 6 SCC 792 (irreparable injury must be specific and demonstrable).

The Prompt

Paste into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini. Replace every bracketed placeholder with your specific facts before generating.

Draft an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit.

Inputs:
- Plaintiff: [NAME, ADDRESS]
- Defendant: [NAME, ADDRESS]
- Suit: [TITLE, SUIT NO. (IF FILED), NATURE — SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE / DECLARATION / INJUNCTION]
- Suit Property / Subject Matter: [DESCRIPTION]
- Apprehended Acts: [E.G., ALIENATION / CONSTRUCTION / DISPOSSESSION]
- Documents: [TITLE DEED / AGREEMENT / RECEIPTS]

Structure:
1. Cause title.
2. Brief facts of the suit.
3. Prima facie case — material facts and documents supporting plaintiff's right (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 — three-fold test).
4. Balance of convenience — irreparable injury vs. inconvenience to defendant.
5. Irreparable loss — that cannot be compensated in money.
6. Specific apprehension supported by recent acts of the defendant.
7. Prayer — restrain defendant by ad-interim ex parte injunction, then confirmed after notice; failing which by injunction during pendency of the suit.

Annex: supporting affidavit under Order XIX Rule 3 CPC, list of documents, and undertaking under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC where ex parte order is sought.

Anatomy of the Draft

Why the prompt is built the way it is — section by section.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• ×Pleading the three limbs as conclusions without supporting facts and documents.
• ×Seeking ex parte relief without urgency or without complying with Rule 3 safeguards.
• ×Suppressing material facts — discovered later, this leads to vacation under Rule 4 and costs.
• ×Praying for mandatory injunction at the interim stage without exceptional circumstances (Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117).

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Thoughts

The application stands or falls on specificity. Each of the three limbs must be a paragraph backed by a document, not a sentence backed by an adjective. Plead urgency honestly, disclose adverse facts, and frame the prayer narrowly — over-broad injunctions invite immediate vacation under Rule 4.