By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 24 September 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice — see our disclaimer
What Rules 1 and 2 Actually Cover
Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a court to restrain a threatened breach or injury before trial, while Rule 2 covers injunctions restraining a continuing or repeated breach of contract or other injury — both available 'when it is just and convenient to do so'. Together, these provisions are the standard route for a plaintiff seeking to preserve the status quo while a civil or commercial suit is pending.
The Three-Part Test
The Supreme Court, in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and the line of authority that has followed it, requires an applicant to satisfy three elements cumulatively: a prima facie case, the balance of convenience in the applicant's favour, and irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages. All three must be shown together — satisfying two strongly while failing the third will not secure an injunction.
Prima facie case is a threshold requirement, not a determination that the applicant will eventually succeed at trial — but it is a real gatekeeping step: if the court is not satisfied a prima facie case exists, it will not go on to weigh balance of convenience or irreparable harm at all, and the application fails at that first stage.
What 'Irreparable Injury' Actually Means
Irreparable injury does not require showing that the harm is literally impossible to reverse. It means the injury is of a kind that money alone cannot fairly compensate — for example, the loss of a unique property interest, breach of a negative covenant restraining specific conduct, or genuine reputational harm that a later damages award could not adequately remedy. A purely financial loss that could, in principle, be quantified and paid as damages is generally not treated as irreparable in this sense.
Balance of Convenience, and the Special Case of Ex Parte Relief
Balance of convenience requires the court to weigh the hardship the applicant would suffer if relief is refused against the hardship the opposite party would suffer if relief is granted, with courts also taking public interest into account where it is relevant to the dispute.
An ex parte ad interim injunction — granted without first hearing the opposite side — is meant to be a short, urgent stop-gap measure rather than the norm. Order XXXIX Rule 3 requires the court to record its reasons for granting relief ex parte, and the defendant, once served, is entitled to apply promptly for the injunction's vacation, at which point the court will hear both sides on whether the interim relief should continue.
Frequently Asked Questions
What three things must an applicant show to get a temporary injunction?
A prima facie case, balance of convenience in the applicant's favour, and irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages — all three cumulatively, following Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh.
Does 'irreparable injury' mean the harm must be permanent?
No. It means the injury is of a kind money cannot fairly compensate — such as loss of a unique property interest or breach of a negative covenant — not that the harm is literally irreversible.
What happens if a court finds there is no prima facie case?
The application fails at that stage — the court will not go on to separately weigh balance of convenience or irreparable injury if a prima facie case is not first established.
Can a court grant an injunction without hearing the other side?
Yes, as an ex parte ad interim measure in urgent cases, but Order XXXIX Rule 3 requires the court to record its reasons, and the defendant can promptly apply to have it vacated once served.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statutory provisions. Readers should always verify current rules, fees and timelines against the applicable statute and rules as amended, since these are revised from time to time.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 and 3.
- Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719, and subsequent Supreme Court authority on the three-part injunction test.