A

Project Report on

Suit for compensation for injunction wrongfully obtained

Submitted By: Shreyash Tiwari

Roll no: 146

Semester-VIII

(B.A.L.L.B. Hons.)

Submitted To: Mr. Shreyas Vyas (Faculty D.P.C.)

Date of Submission- 15th February, 2017

Hidayatullah National Law University

First & foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Shreyas Vyas, Faculty, D.P.C., HNLU,
for allotting me this challenging topic to work on. He has been very kind in providing inputs
for this work, by way of suggestions and by giving his very precious time for some
discussion and providing me resource of his vast knowledge of the subject which helped me
to look at the topic in its very broad sense also to look at some of the very narrow concepts by
expertise view. Therefore she proved to be a database in making this project. Hence I would
like to thank him.

I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have helped
me with ideas about this work and also a source for constant motivation and hence they were
a guiding force to me in making of this project. Last, but not the least I thank the University
Administration for equipping the University with such good library and IT lab.

My special thanks to library staff and IT staff for equipping me with the necessary books and
data from the website.

I would also like to thank the hostel staff for providing me a healthy and clean environment
that provided me a great concentration level.

Shreyash TIwari

Roll No. – 146

Semester- VIII

(B.A.L.L.B. Hons.)

2
 Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………… 2

Objectives ……………………………….……………………………………………….…. 4

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….…... 5

1. Chapter-1=> Injunction under Civil Procedure Code, And Specific Relief

2. Chapter-2=> suit for compensation for injunction wrongfully obtained

3. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………12

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….…... 13

3
 Objectives

 To Study about the concept of Injunction the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

 To Draft a suit for compensation for injunction wrongfully obtained under Fictional
Situations according to the provisions of section 95.

4
 Introduction

An injunction is defined in Halsbury's Laws as : “A judicial process whereby a party is

The law of injunction in our country is having its origin in the Equity Jurisprudence inherited
from England who borrowed it from Roman Law. It is basic principle of our law that if there
is a right there should be a remedy. An injunction is a Judicial Remedy prohibiting persons
from doing a specified act called a restrictive injunction or commanding them to undo some
wrong or injury called a mandatory injunction and may be either temporary, interim or
interlocutory or permanent. The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation
of property in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are
adjudicated. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant
interim relief. Indian courts regulate the granting of a temporary injunction in accordance
with the procedure laid down under Sections 94, 95 and Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure
Code, whereas, temporary and perpetual injunctions are prescribed by Sections 36 to 42 of
the Specific Relief Act

In this research project, we will discuss about Injucntion under Code Code of Civil Procedure
1908 and will draft a Suit for compensation for injunction wrongfully obtained on a Fictional
Scenario.

5
 Chapter-1: Injunction under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 94 CPC

Section 94 in The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 / Section 94 of CPC :-

Supplemental proceedings.-

In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so
prescribed,-

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why
he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for
security commit him to the civil prison ;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to
place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;

(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof
to the civil prison ankle order that his property be attached and sold;

(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching
and selling his property;

(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

Section 95

Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary
injunction granted under the last preceding section,

(a) it appears to the Court that such arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on
insufficient grounds, or

(b) the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or
probable grounds for instituting the same, the defendant may apply to the Court, and the
Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount, not

6
exceeding one thousand rupees, as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for
the [expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him];

Provided that a Court shall not award, under this section, an amount exceeding the limits of
its peculiar jurisdiction.

(2) An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect
of such arrest, attachment or injunction

KINDS OF INJUNCTIONS

Injunctions are mainly of two kinds i.e. temporary and perpetual injunction. A party against
whom a perpetual injunction is granted is thereby restrained forever from doing the act
complained of. A Perpetual injunction can only be granted by a final decree made at the
hearing and upon the merits of the suit. On the other hand a temporary or interim injunction
may be granted on an interlocutory application at any stage of a suit. The injunction is called
temporary as it is until the suit is disposed of or until the further order of the Court.
Injunctions are (I) preventive, prohibitive or restrictive, that is when they prevent , prohibit or
restrain someone from doing something; or (II) mandatory, that is , when they compel,
command or order person to do something. Again, an injunction is granted without finally
deciding an application for injunction and operates till the disposal of the application.

BASIC INGREDIENTS:

It is well settled that in granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction, the Court has very
wide discretion. The exercise of the discretion should be in a judicial manner, depending
upon the circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the guidance
of the Court to that effect. It is well settled that while

Granting injunction plaintiff must show:

(i) Existence of prima facie case,

(ii) Balance of convenience and

(iii) The injury must be of an irreparable loss that can not be compensated in terms of mony.

(B) IRREPARABLE INJURY: The existence of the prima faice case alone does not entitle
the applicant for a temporary injunction. The applicant must further satisfy the court about

7
the second condition by showing that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction as
prayed is not granted, and that there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect
himself from the consequences of apprehended injury. In other words, the court must be
satisfied that refusal to grant injunction would result in 'irreparable injury' to the party
seeking relief and he needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury.
Granting of injunction is an equitable relief and such a power can be exercised when judicial
intervention is absolutely necessary to protect rights and interests of the applicant. The
expression irreparable injury however does not mean that there should be no possibility of
repairing the injury. It only means that the injury must be a material one, i.e., which cannot be
adequately compensated by damages. An injury will be regarded as irreparable where there
exists no certain pecuniary standard for measuring damages.

(C) BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:. The third condition for granting interim injunction is
that the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant. In other words, the court
must be satisfied that the 9 comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely
to be caused to the applicant by refusing the injunction will be greater than that which is
likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it

8
 Chapter-2:Suit under Section 95and 94 of C.P.C

Facts of the Case-

The plaintiff, Mr. S , Owned a land adjusent to the land owned by one Mr B. Plantiff was
building a warehouse on his land and the construction started on 7.7.15 after the map had
been passed by the respective authorities.

On 6.5.16 the defendant approached Mr. S and requested him to stop the construction of the
warehouse as it violated defendants right to enjoy his property as the height of the warehouse
prevented light to enter the premises of Mr B or the defendant and further the constant noise
and dust which was the result of the construction made it even more difficult for Mr B to
enjoy his property. But the plaintiff disagreed to stop the construction as a lot of money had
already been invested and prior approval of the concerned authorizes was also taken and
further if there were such issues why did the defendant raised the question after more than 11
months had already passed more importantly the issue was raised just a day after there was a
tiff between plaintiff and defendant regarding some other issue.

On 21.6.16 the defendant filed a suit to obtain injunction against the plaintiff stating the
reason mentioned before including some misleading facts thus and the honorable court
granted temporary injunction and plaintiff had to stop the construction. As a lot of money had
been invested in the consturtion of the warehouse which was totally legal and had been
approved by the concerned authorities the defendant of the case who is now the plaintiff or
Mr. S seeks compensation for the damages from the wrongfully obtained injunction.

The following suit has arisen in this respect.

9
 CHAPTER NO 3 DRAFT OF PLAINT

In the Court of Civil Judge Class - I at Indore

Suit No. 447 of 2017

Shreyash Tiwari.....................................................................................................................
PLAINTIFF

(Owner of Warehouse, plot no 77 near shalimar township Indore, M.P.)

Vs.

B Kaur............................................................................................................DEFENDANT

(Owner of Land adjacent to the warehouse, Resident of House of 78,near Shalimar township
Indore, M.P.)

Suit for compensation for injunction wrongfully obtained

The Plaintiff respectfully states the following:

1. Mr Shreyash Tiwari or the plaintiff is the owner of the plot no 77 and on 7.7.15 the
construction of a warehouse was started on the same land.

2. The permission for such construction had been already taken by the municipal
corporation and the map had been passed by the respective authorities which proves
that the construction was legal and permitted.

3. The cause foe action of present suit arose because defendant wrongfully obtained an
injunction order by misrepresenting certain facts related to the case.

4. The building which is of 2 floors is not blocking the sunlight completely as claimed
by the defendant and neither the sound and the dust which is the result of the
construction coming under the category of irepairable damages and it is a part of
natural course of action and will cease to occur as soon as construction is finished.

10
 5. The principles for injunctions laid down under cpc clearly states that for granting an
injunction the damage must be irrepairable and the balance of convenience lies in the
favor of plaintiff as he tends to lose more as the result of injunction as compared to
the defendant
6. Due to the wrongful injunction order passed by the court the plaintiff has suffered a
great deal of monetary loss as well as has suffered mental trauma thus seeks
compensation.

7. The suit is within the court's territorial jurisdiction as per section 95, 94 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

8. The plaintiff therefore prays that:

1. The court be pleased to quash the injunction order.

2. The court be pleased to order the defendant to provide a reasonable compensation

Place: Indore (Signature of Plaintiff)

Date : 29/10/ 2016

XYZ

(Advocate)

Verification

I, Shreyash Tiwari, do hereby solemnly verify that the contents from paragraphs 1 to 4 are
correct and true to the best of my knowledge and contents from paragraphs 5 to 8 are based
on legal advice, which I believe to be correct. Affirmed at Indore this 12th Day of March
2017.

11
(Signature)
Plaintiff

CONCLUSION

An injunction is an equitable remedy and as such attracts the application of the maxim that he
who seeks equity must do equity. Granting of injunction is entirely in the discretion of the
Court, though the discretion is to be sound and reasonably guided by Judicial Principles. The
power to grant a temporary injunction is at the discretion of the court. This discretion,
however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles.
Injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side. The grant of
injunction is in the nature of equitable relief, and the court has undoubtedly power to impose
such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such conditions, however, must be reasonable so as
not to make it impossible for the party to comply with the same and thereby virtually denying
the relief which be would otherwise be ordinarily entitled to.

In view of the aforesaid, it can be concluded that grant of temporary injunction cannot be
claimed by the party asa matter of right nor can be denied by the Court arbitrarily. However,
the discretion to be exercised by the Court is guided by the principles mentioned here in
above and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The party seeking relief not
only has to establish prima facie case but also the irreparable loss that would be caused in
case of denial to grant relief and that the balance of convenience lies in his favor

12
 Biblography

 Dr. A. B. Kafaltiya, Pleadings, Drating, and Conveyancing, Universal Law

Statute:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Websites:

1. www.legalbites.in
2. www.scribd.com

13