In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court
has held that a temporary injunction cannot be granted in an appeal arising
from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC), as there must be a subsisting plaint for an injunction to be
validly granted. The Court emphasized that once a plaint is rejected, it ceases
to exist in the eyes of the law, and any injunction previously granted in
connection with it becomes legally ineffective. Such an injunction can only be
revived if the plaint is restored or reinstated.
The bench, comprising Justices B.V.
Nagarathna and Sanjay Kumar Sharma, was hearing an appeal filed by the
Appellant challenging an interim order passed by the High Court. In the case at
hand, the Respondent had filed an appeal before the High Court against the
rejection of his plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and simultaneously sought a
temporary injunction against the Appellant.
While the appeal was still pending, the
High Court issued an order granting the temporary injunction in favour of the
Respondent. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant moved the Supreme Court,
contending that the injunction was untenable in law given that the underlying
plaint had already been rejected.
Agreeing with the Appellant’s contention,
the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order. It observed that
the High Court had committed an error in granting interim relief in a case
where the foundational pleading—the plaint—had already been rejected. The Court
reiterated the principle that an injunction order, which is essentially a
relief in relation to a pending suit, cannot survive independently once the
plaint stands rejected. The only circumstance under which such an injunction
could be revived is if the plaint is subsequently restored by the appropriate
court.
This ruling reinforces the principle that
injunctive relief is contingent on the existence of a valid and continuing
suit, and that procedural safeguards under the CPC must be strictly adhered to.
“we observe that in a case where an appeal
is filed by being aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of powers
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought not to have granted an order
of temporary injunction. We say so for the reason that the plaint itself has
been rejected by the Commercial Court and the correctness or otherwise of the
said rejection is a matter at large before the High Court. When the plaint
itself has been rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against such
an order is a continuation of a suit.”, the court observed.
“once the plaint has been rejected by the
trial court i.e. the Commercial Court, in the instant case, until it is revived
/ restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate against the
defendant in the suit, who is the respondent in the appeal filed against the
rejection of the plaint. In other words, it is necessary that there ought to be
a subsisting plaint in order to seek an order of temporary injunction.”, the
court added. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
info@adhwaitha.com