Temporary Injunction May Be Granted to Defendants Under Order 39 Rule 1(a) Without Filing Counter-Claim

The Appellants (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 149/2023 for declaration of title, cancellation of a sale deed, and permanent injunction regarding a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas ("Schedule A"), which is part of a larger 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas plot ("Schedule B")

The Appellants claimed purchase from one Billal Hussain in 2023

Conversely, the Respondents (defendants) claimed they purchased the entire Schedule B land in 1994 and asserted that two shops are currently operated there by their relatives

Pending the suit, the Respondents filed for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a). The Trial Court granted the injunction on 29.06.2024, despite the Respondents not having filed a counter-claim at that specific time

The Appellants challenged this grant (FAO 57/2024) and a subsequent order allowing police aid to enforce said injunction (CRP 407/2024)

1. Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in favor of a defendant against a plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the CPC in the absence of a counter-claim

2. Whether the Trial Court exercised its discretionary power perversely or arbitrarily in granting the temporary injunction and subsequent police aid

The court primarily applied Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It distinguished between Rule 1(b) and (c), which apply specifically against defendants, and Rule 1(a), which uses the phrase "any party," thereby permitting injunctions against plaintiffs if the property is in danger of being wasted or damaged

The court relied on the precedent Suganda Bai v. Sulu Bai & Ors. (Karnataka High Court), which establishes that a defendant may seek an injunction without a counter-claim if the relief claimed arises out of the plaintiff's cause of action or is incidental to it

The court also applied the "three golden principles" for interlocutory orders: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss

The High Court observed that the phrase "any party" in Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) creates no legal embargo against granting a temporary injunction to a defendant against a plaintiff

The court found that because the Respondents' claim to the land was incidental to the subject matter of the Appellants' suit, the Trial Court was within its rights to grant protection even before a formal counter-claim was on record (noting that a counter-claim was subsequently filed in April 2025)

Regarding the merits, the court noted that the Respondents produced evidence of possession (shops) and that the Appellants’ mutation had been cancelled by revenue authorities prior to the suit

The court determined that the Trial Court had properly weighed the three golden principles and that an appellate court should not interfere with discretionary relief unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse

The court affirmed the order dated 29.06.2024, maintaining the status quo and the injunction against obstructing the Respondents' business. Furthermore, the court upheld the order dated 24.09.2024 granting police aid, stating it was a necessary and valid exercise of power to implement the existing injunction order