1
BEFORE THE COURT OF 3RD ADDL. MUNSIFF
AT JAMMU
IN THE MATTER OF:-
MARINA BIBI
……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SATISH SHARMA
……..DEFENDANT
Written Arguments of defendant in an
application filed by the plaintiff under O 39, R 1&2 CPC
for grant of Ad-interim injunction for vocation of
stay order dated 05.06.2025:
Principles Governing Grant Of Interim
Injunctions:
1. The grant of injunction as contained under order 39
Rule 1 CPC has been interpreted in AIR 2002 SC 2598
(Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Sri
Sriman Narayan) where the Apex Court has held that
it is while exercising discretion of the court in grant of
interim injunction the following test has to be applied
(paras 7 to 9, 11 & 12):
(i) Whether the plaintiff has a “prima-facie
case”;
(ii) Whether the “balance of convenience” is in
favour of plaintiff; and
(iii)Whether the plaintiff would suffer an
“irreparable injury” if his prayer for
interlocutory injunction is disallowed.
Meaning of ---(A) Prima-facie case
(B) Irreparable injury
(C) Balance of convenience
(A) PRIMA - FACIE CASE:
2
A finding on ‘prima-facie case’ would be a
finding of fact. However, while arriving at such finding
of fact, the court not only must arrive at a conclusion
that a case for trial has been made out but also that
other factors requisite for grant of injunction exists.
Under Section 94 CPC r/w Order 39 of CPC, the
jurisdiction of the court to interfere with an order of
interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely
“equitable” and, therefore, the court on being
approached will apart from other considerations, also
look to the “conduct of the parties” invoking the
jurisdiction of the court, and may refuse to interfere
unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the
relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking
jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself
was not at fault and that he himself was not
responsible for bringing out the state of things as
complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable
in dealings with the party against whom he is seeking
relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These
considerations will arise not only in respect of the
person who seeks an order of injunction under Order
39 Rule 1 or 2 of the CPC, but also in respect of party
approaching the court for vacating the ad-interim or
temporary injunction already granted in the pending
suit or proceedings.
“Prima-facie case” is not to be confused
with prima-facie title which has to be established on
evidence at the trial. Prima-facie case is substantial
question raised, bona-fide, which needs investigation
and decision on merits. Satisfaction of the court that
there is prima-facie case by itself is not sufficient to
grant injunction. The court has to further satisfy that
non-interference by court would result in “irreparable
injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no
other remedy available to the party except one to
grant injunction and he needs protection from the
consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.
"Irreparable injury" however does not mean that
there must be no physical possibility of repairing the
3
injury but means only that the injury must be material
one, namely one that cannot be adequately
compensated by way of damages. The third condition
is that the "balance of convenience" must be in
favour of grant of interim injunction. The court while
granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise
sound judicial discretion to find the amount of
substantial mischief of injury which is likely to be
caused to the parties if the injunction is refused and
compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the
other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing
competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of
injury, the court considers that pending the suit, the
subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an
injunction would be issued. (vide Dalpat Kumar Vs
Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276).
2. NO INTERIM INJUNCTION IN ABSENCE OF
PRIMA-FACIE CASE:-
Interim injunction cannot be granted in
absence of “prima-facie case” even if the other
requirements are fulfilled. The legal position is no
longer res-integra by catena of judgments, that the
interim injunction U/O 39 Rule 1&2 CPC cannot be
granted when the party fails to prove the very first
ingredient of establishing a “prima-facie case” and
further that there is no need to deliberate upon the
other two ingredients i.e. “balance of convenience”
and “irreparable loss” in case of grant or refusal of
interim injunction. Applying the aforesaid legal
principle to the facts of the case in hand, it is out of
place to mention here, that the plaintiff is out of
possession of the suit land measuring 10 marlas
comprised in Khasra No. 202 situated in Revenue
Village Gurha Brahmana Tehsil Jammu North District
Jammu.
Further the plaintiff has no right, title or
interest whatsoever qua the proprietary land of
defendant measuring 6 marlas in Khasra No. 110 min
Khewat No.1 & Khata No. 3 min situated at Revenue
4
Village Gurha Brahmana Tehsil Jammu North District
Jammu which he has purchased from vendor Sanjay
Kumar in pursuance of a sale deed executed on
24.02.2015 and registered with the Court of Sub-
Registrar 2nd Munsiff Jammu on same day of
24.02.2015 and mutation No. 2067/Jeem regarding
possession and ownership rights thereof attested in
favour of the defendant. Answering defendant has
placed on record Copy of Jamabandi Hadbast No. 134
(annexure-D10) of Tehsil & District Jammu reaffirming
mutation No. 2067/Jeem attested in his favour having
reference to other mutation Nos. 1218, 1958 & 2824,
alongwith Copies of Khasra Girdawaries (annexure-D-
15, D-16) of village Gurha Brahmana Tehsil & District
Jammu for Rabi 2023 and 2025 which clearly
demonstrate that land comprised in Khasra No. 110
min measuring 6 marlas in khewat No. 1 and Khata no.
3 min is recorded in the ownership and possession of
defendant. Therefore, there is presumption of
correctness attached to the entries of Jamabandi and
Khasra Girdawaries (Annexures D-10, D-15 & D-16)
aforesaid relied by the defendant in terms of Section
31 of Land Revenue Act. This presumption of course is
rebuttable in nature, however, merely swearing an
affidavit by the plaintiff that she is in cultivating
possession of suit land of Khasra No. 202 measuring 10
marlas does not dislodge the presumption attached to
the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari placed on record
and relied by the defendant. Therefore, it can be stated
that prima-facie the contesting defendant is owner in
possession of 6 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No.
110 min khewat No. 1 and Khata no. 3 min and the
plaintiff has no right, title or interest qua the said land.
Thus, the very first ingredient of establishing a “prima-
facie case” for succeeding in a suit for grant of
injunction has not been made out by plaintiff. Suffice to
say, that vide Annexure-A to the plaint, plaintiff has
failed to establish that she is in actual physical
possession on the suit lands. Plaintiff is neither in de-
jure possession [e.g. possession on the basis of sale
5
deed, rent deed, or will or lease or license etc.] nor in
defacto possession [physical possession] of the suit
lands. No cause of action has been disclosed in the
plaint which requires to be rejected in terms of Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC. Section 41 (j) of Specific Relief Act
1963 prohibits grant of injunction when plaintiff has no
personal interest. Issuance of an order of injunction is
absolutely a discretionary and equitable relief. In a
given set of facts, injunction may be given to protect
the possession of owner or person in lawful possession.
It is not mandatory that for mere asking such a relief
should be given. Injunction is a personal right u/s 41(j)
of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The plaintiff must have
personal interest in the matter. The interest or right not
shown to be in existence, cannot be protected by
injunction. In view of the position of law expounded
aforesaid, plaintiff in the case in hand, has not shown
any interest or right in existence qua the suit
properties in Khasra Nos. 202 and 110 min. Plaintiff,
therefore, has failed to prove a “prima-facie case” for
grant of temporary injunction in her favour, therefore,
law lays emphasis that there is no need to deliberate
upon the other two ingredients i.e. “balance of
convenience” and “irreparable loss”.
Case laws relied:
(i) T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS M. MALLAPPA & ANR…
RESPONDENT(S) [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5577 OF
2021 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.
10621 OF 2021, judgment pronounced by His
Lordships Hon’ble Shri Justice B.R. Gavai Judge
Supreme Court of India on 07.09.2021) relevant
paras 3,8,10,12,13,14,15,16,20,21,22];
(ii) Jharkhand State Housing Board vs Shri
Didar Singh and another [(2019) 17 SCC 692,
Equivalent citation: AIRONLINE 2018 SC 720,
relevant paras 2,3,4,5,10,11,12,13];
(iii)Ramji Rai & Another Vs Jagdish Mallah
(Dead) through L.Rs & Another, [AIR 2007
Supreme Court 900];
6
(iv) The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational
Institution …Appellant versus. B. Gunashekar
and Another…. Respondents, [2025 INSC 490,
relevant paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 14.1,15,
15.1,15.2,15.2.1,15.2.2,15.2.4,20];
(v) Mohammad Shafi Bhat & Ors...Petitions(s) Vs.
Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Others…Respondent(s),
[CM(M) No. 284/2024 judgment pronounced by
his Lordships Hon’ble Shir Justice Sanjay Dhar on
11.07.2025, relevant paras 1,4,6,7,11,12&13];
(vi) Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of
India (Uoi) And Ors. [(1994) 5 SCC 547,
relevant paras 1,2,3,4,5&6];
3. Equitable conduct of party is must for
grant of temporary injunction:
Under Order 39 of CPC the jurisdiction of the Court to
interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary
injunction is purely equitable, and therefore, the court
on being approached will apart from the other
considerations also look into the conduct of the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court which may refuse
to interfere unless his conduct is free from blame.
Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature,
therefore, the “Doctrine of Clean Hands” is
squarely applicable to the said relief. The “clean hand
doctrine” is an equitable principle that asserts that a
party seeking legal relief must do so with honesty and
integrity without engaging in deceitful or unethical
conduct. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant material or is otherwise guilty of
“suppressio veri” and “suggestio falsi”
(suppression of truth equivalent to suggestion of
false) the same disqualifies him/her from obtaining
any relief as this rule has been evolved out of the
need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the
process of court by deceiving it. Equitable remedies
like “injunctions” trace it’s origin from Courts of
equity (chancery) in England where “Common Law
Courts” and “Courts of Equity” historically operated as
7
separate systems though they are now merged. A
Court of Equity is a type of court that applies
principles of equity to cases rather than strict legal
rules. Equity Courts operate on the principles of
fairness, conscience and good faith. A Court of Equity
refuses a relief to a plaintiff whose conduct qua the
subject matter of the litigation has been improper,
this has been formally expressed by the maxim, “he
who has committed inequity shall not have
equity”. Applying the principle of “Clean Hands
Doctrine” to the facts of the case of plaintiff, it is out
of place to mention here, that plaintiff is out of
possession of the suit property measuring 10 Marlas
comprising in Khasra No. 202 situated at Revenue
Village Gurha Brahman Tehsil & District Jammu, and
further has no right, title or interest qua the
proprietary land of defendant measuring 6 marlas
comprised in Khasra No. 110 min, Khewat No.1 and
Khata No.3 min situated at Gurha Brahmana Tehsil
and District Jammu. Therefore, the “simpliciter suit for
injunction” filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
Furthermore, the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable
on account of non-joinder of recorded owners “Nand
Lal & others” and “Chib family” as ‘necessary parties
to the suit’. It is reiterated, that the description of suit
property as given by the plaintiff in the body of the
plaint has not been supported by any public record of
the settlement or survey or Aks Shajra/Titma or plaint
map delineating the description and boundaries of the
suit land sufficient to identify it. The suit of plaintiff is
a “bundle of lies”, “pigment of her imagination”,
“fabrication of facts” and “creation of fantasy” and
gross abuse of process of law. Plaintiff’s conduct is
reprehensible as she has not come to the court with
clean hands, and by suppression of material facts, has
disentitled herself from equitable relief of injunction.
No ‘cause of action’ has been disclosed in the plaint,
therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiff requires
summarily rejection by this Hon’ble Court in terms of
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
8
Case laws relied:
(i) Ramjas Foundation and Another V. Union of
India and other (2010 INSC 763);
(ii) G.M. Haryana Roadways…. Petitioner Vs Jai
Bhagwan & Anr…. Respondents (AIR 2008 SCW
2252);
(iii) Arunima Baruah Vs Union of India & Ors.
[Case No. Appeal (Civil) 2205 of 2007 decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 27.04.2007];
(iv) M/S Prestige Lights Ltd Vs State Bank of
India ( AIR 2007 SCW 5350);
(v)M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs
State of Bihar And Ors (AIR 2004 Supreme Court
2421);
4.
