‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ – this principle can be especially true for a person seeking injunction as a remedy from our justice system, which can be claimed if the peaceful and legal enjoyment of rights is hampered or obstructed. It is a judicial order that either requires a party to a suit to do or refrain from doing or continuing to do a specific act. In an urgent scenario where awaiting the end of the case to receive relief will render the whole point of seeking one pointless, an interim injunction could be the equitable solution.

In general, injunction is a preventive relief, as its purpose is to prevent further harm to the party applying for it. It is granted on the basis of equity, only at the discretion of the court. An interim injunction is usually a temporary version of the type of injunction the applicant will seek at the trial and is thus only a provisional remedy. A temporary injunction can be granted at any point in the suit and will continue until a specified date or until further order from the court. For example, person X wants to stop person Y from cutting down some trees which person X believes to be on his/her property. For the court to grant X an injunction, X has to prove his/her right on those trees. However, even if the claim is valid, the injunction would be granted at the end of the trial and by then, Y could be done cutting down the trees. In such circumstances, X can apply for the temporary or interim injunction that would stop Y from cutting the trees till the hearing of the case or till the case ends. The object of an interim injunction is to maintain the status quo of the existing conditions at the existing time of the institution of suit.  In most cases, temporary injunctions are prohibitory (restrains a party from doing an act) but there have been some rare cases of mandatory injunctions (compels a party to do an act).

Temporary injunction may be granted in a suit filed to seek permanent injunction or specific performance against any action that prevents enjoyment of right, such as a breach of contract, dispossession of property, mischief, a nuisance, construction, defamation etc. In Pubali Bank Limited v The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and another, plaintiff contractor furnished bank guarantee along with bid as required by notice inviting tender. The bid was withdrawn by the plaintiff before acceptance. The plaintiff was granted temporary injunction, restraining the bank from making payment.

To pray for an interim injunction, the party must file an application to the court for it during the suit. Generally, it is the plaintiff who files for the interim injunction, but in some cases, the defendant may also apply for one.

In the matter of the laws governing interim injunction, Section 54 of the Specific Relief (S.R) Act 1877 states that it is to be regulated by the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure of Bangladesh, whereas, Section 94 (c) and (e) of the CPC also contains that the court may grant an temporary injunction to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, and/or make such other interlocutory orders. Order 39, Rule 1 provides the conditions under which temporary injunctions may be granted in a suit for property disputes. Rule 2 contains the conditions for the suits for breach of contract. And as per Rule 5, an injunction directed to a corporation is also binding on all its members and officers who are affiliated to the act the injunctions are to be imposed upon. However, while the legal provisions address “temporary” injunction, they do not contain the term “interim”, although practically, they mean the same thing.

To be granted an injunction before the end of the trial, the plaintiff must prove three factors. In the case of Shahazada Md. Umer Beg v Sultan Mahmood Khan (1970), it was stated by the court that to grant a temporary injunction, it must see that there is a strong probability of the plaintiff's success in the suit and that the injury cannot be adequately compensated if the injunction is not granted. While doing so, balance of convenience has to lie in favour of the plaintiff.

Firstly, that the suit must be a prima facie case and the court is assured that the applicant has some considerable prospect of winning even before the trial begins. The court will not grant interim injunction if the proceedings are invalid. A consideration such as this is justifiable as this minimises the risk of injustice to the opposite party. Such a risk exists because the interim injunction is granted before any argument or evidence - presented by either of the parties - is thoroughly examined by the court.

Secondly, the applicant must prove that there are no other adequate remedies available under any provisions and they will suffer from irreparable loss if not granted injunction. Irreparable loss or injury has been defined in the case Shamsul Huda and others v Alauddin and Taiwa Textile Mills (1987) as “substantial in nature and cannot be adequately compensated by damages”. Monetary compensation is considered inadequate if the defendant is likely to be unable to pay or if the damage is not monetary. It is also not an adequate remedy if the damage is irreparable, or, if the compensation would be difficult to assess, for example, in a defamation case. The availability of substitute remedies diminishes the urgency of the matter.

Thirdly, the balance of convenience must be in the favour of the applicant. This means the court must believe that if the injunction is not granted, the amount of inconveniences of the applicant will be greater than what the opposite party would suffer if the injunction is granted. To assess the balance of conveniences, status quo, special factors and merits of the case has to be considered. As injunctions are granted with keeping equity in mind, The principles laid down under British Law in the case of American Cyanamid v Ethicon also includes “undertaking as to damages” which means, in the case the applicant fails to establish his right to the injunction, he must be prepared to pay compensation to the opponent – this is important as interim injunction is granted before the trial. Even if these factors are fulfilled, injunction may be refused, on the grounds of delay or fraud.

When it comes to ad-interim injunction, there might be a misconception that they are the same as they are both interlocutory orders but the main difference between interim injunction and ad-interim injunction lies in degree and not in kind. A clear distinction between the two can be found in Rajendraprasad R. Singh vs The Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Bombay (2003): The duration of the ad interim injunction is shorter than that of the interim injunction. Interim order usually operates for the whole suit unless varied under Rule 4 of the CPC or set aside in appeal. Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction. Also, an ad interim injunction can be granted even if only one party to the case is present.

The writer is a Research Intern at the Research Wing of A.S & Associates