- (1.) A wholly erroneous interpretation of the recent instructions issued to all District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, by the letter of Way 2, 1990 is what impels interference, by this Court, on its own motion, with the impugned order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala City of May 24, 1990.
(2.) THE matter here concerns the grant of ad interim temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Laid down, in these provisions are the circumstances under which temporary injunction can be granted. It is well-settled, however, that the existence of such circumstances does not invariably compel the court to grant temporary injunctions. In other words, the grant of temporary injunctions is a matter which falls within the domain of judicial discretion that vests in the court. The exercise of such discretion depends upon a variety of factors. It is impossible to lay down any general rule on the subject by which the discretion of the court ought, in all cases, to be regulated, but one principle is well settled, namely; that in no case does the court grant an ad interim injunction as a matter of course.
(3.) AS is, however, well-known, the courts have over the years evolved a set of broad principles to be kept in view while considering the grant of temporary injunction, namely; whether the party seeking it has a strong prima facie case in support of the right asserted, irreparable injury would result if the injunction sought is denied and comparative balance of convenience also lies in the grant of the injunction.;