The trial Judge has very lightly granted the injunction. Principles of granting temporary injunctions are well settled. Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 provide for such injunctions. Rule 1 does not apply. Rule 2 requires that some injury must be threatened. Injury must be a legal injury and not any fancied injury. In all cases where injury is alleged the Court is put on an enquiry as to what are the contents of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. Assuming that some such right is shown the second element to be considered is whether irreparable injury or inconvenience may result to the plaintiffs if the same is refused. The appellants want to prevent the owner from developing the property merely by relying upon the Rules of the Corporation. Their shops exist as they are and they could carry on the business without any hindrance until the Small Causes Court decide the eviction suit. By this injunction, the appellants are only holding the owners to reason. The trial Court did not even pause to consider the loss to the owner. We have dealt with the question in somewhat details, for in recent days cases after cases came to our notice where we find injunctions are granted without due care and circumspection and without thought to the consequences of the same to the other side, particularly by the Small Causes Court and the City Civil Court, in Bombay. No attempt is even made to safeguard the other side by imposing terms such as security or otherwise. The duty of being careful even in the case of ex parte applications cannot but be emphasised. It is the duty of the Judge to be careful in the exercise of this power and must by careful questioning of the applicant ascertain whether a real case exists for the grant of the same. He must be satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it. It should not be granted lightly or inadvisedly. Even if granted, the absent party ought to be sufficiently protected. (Canon of Judicial Ethics of American Bar Association). We only hope that care will hereafter be shown by subordinate Courts in granting injunctions.
Print Page
Bombay High Court
Narayandas S. Kanuga vs Sarasvatibai D. Joshi And Anr. on 7 March, 1967
Equivalent citations: AIR 1968 Bom 280, (1967) 69 BOMLR 622,1967 MHLJ 946
Bench: Patel, Thakkar
