T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Prem Prakash, I agree with the conclusions reached by him but I would like to add something on the question of interlocutory injunction.
(2.) THE grant of an interlocutory injunction is a remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. When an application for interlocutory injunction is made upon contested facts the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex-hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it or both is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. It is with a view to mitigate the risk of injunction to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that a practice has arisen to grant him relief by way of temporary injunction. THE object seems to be to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages but the plaintiff's need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal right for which he could not be adequately compensated. THE Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience lies'. It is however to be remembered that the purpose sought to be achieved by giving to the court discretion to grant interlocutory injunction would be frustrated if the discretion were clogged by a technical rule forbidding its exercise if the Court evaluated the chances of the plaintiff's ultimate success at the trial at 50 per cent or less but permitting its exercise if his chances were of more than 50%. No such mathematical formula can be evolved for this purpose. The discretion has to be exercised not arbitrarily and capriciously but judiciously and fairly on reasonable grounds depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available to the Court at the hearing of the application. The plaintiff should show 'a probability that he is entitled to relief' (Preston v. Luck, (1884) 27 Ch D 497) or, to put it differently 'strong prima facie case that the right which he seeks to protect in fact exists' (Smith v. Grigg Ltd., (1924) 1 KB 655). A less onerous criterion was indicated in Junes v. Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd., (1911) 1 KB 455 requiring the plaintiff to show that there is 'certainly a case to be tried'. In my view, the court must be satisfied before granting interlocutory injunction that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious but is well founded. The applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried and there are fair chances of its being decided in his favour. Of course, at this stage of the litigation the court need not adjudicate upon the facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend nor decide difficult questions of law which need detailed arguments and mature consideration because they are matters to be dealt with at the trial. The court has to abstain at this stage of the case from expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case because that can be done only after the final hearing. If in a suit for permanent injunction the court finds that the material available at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding at the final trial, it should proceed to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief.
(3.) IN this connetcion the court should consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages. If the damages would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff's claim appeared to be at that stage. If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages under such an undertaking would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a financial position to pay them, interlocutory injunction may be granted. The question of balance of convenience would arise where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages available to either party or to both. If the factors are evenly balanced the rule of prudence would demand preservation of the status quo. The Court would, however, not embark upon anything resembling a trial of action upon conflicting affidavit in order to evaluate the strength of either party's case. It would be unwise to attempt here to list all the various matters which may need to be taken into consideration in deciding the application for interlocutory injunction. These would vary from case to case. IN addition to these criteria there may be many other special factors to be taken into consideration in the particular circumstances of individual cases. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527) the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction. However, by an interlocutory order the court will not stay the operation of an impugned order which had already been given effect to and had exhausted itself. Judged in the light of these principles, I am of the view that interlocutory injunction should be issued in the instant case. The facts and circumstances warranting such an injunction have been set forth in detail by brother Prem Prakash J., in the judgement and it is not necessary to repeat the same.;