JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri A. R. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner,ýÿ Shri P. V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are thatýÿ initially theýÿ plaintiff/petitioner filed a regular suit bearing Suit No. 598 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Pratapgarh for permanent injunction. In the said matter, he moved an application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, allowed by the trial Court by order dated 10.4.2001. Aggrieved by the said facts, respondent filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 16/01 “Mohd. Safik v. Mohd. Zamil”, allowed by judgment and order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure 1) and the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court has been vacated. Aggrieved by the said facts, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. On 15.11.2002, this Court has passed an interim order, the relevant portion is reproduced herein below : “Till further orders of this Court, the operation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 10.10.2002 shall remain stayed.” 4. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to state the aims and objects in respect of grant of temporary injunction by the Courts while exercising the power under Order XXXIX Ruleýÿ 1 and 2 C.P.C. Rule 1 of Order XXXIX lays down three circumstances where the Court may grant temporary or interim injunction if the circumstances and facts are proved by affidavit or otherwise. Firstly, where the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or from being fully sold in the execution of a decree; Secondly where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with an intention to defraud his creditor; Thirdly where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property. On proof of these on affidavits, the Court may pass an order restraining or forbearing the defendant from doing such act of wasting, damaging, alienating, sale, removal or dispossession of the property or restrain the defendant from dispossession the plaintiff from the suit property or causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property. 5. On proof of these on affidavits, the Court may pass an order restraining or forbearing the defendant from doing such act of wasting, damaging, alienating, sale, removal or dispossession of the property or restrain the defendant from dispossession the plaintiff from the suit property or causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property. 5. Similarly, under Rule 2 of Order XXXIX, the Court may, by an order of temporary or interim injunction, restrain the defendant from committing breach of contract or injury complained of arising out of the same contract. However, while exercising the power under Rule 2, the Court must bear in mind that in case where the performance of a contract is not specifically enforced, damages for such breach would be the proper and adequate relief. Then in such cases injunction may not be granted. The Courts must also bear in mind the provisions of Section 41, particularly clause (e) of the Specific Relief Act, while exercising the power under Rule 2 of the Order XXXIX of the Code. According to this Section, the perpetual injunction could not be granted to restrain the breach of a contract, then in such cases the Court may refuse to grant temporary injunction. 6. The principle upon which the jurisdiction can be exercised has been discussed by the author in the book “Kerr on Injunctions”. The relevant portion is quoted herein below : (at pages 410 and 411- Sixth Edition) “The Jurisdiction of the Court by way of interlocutory injunction against breach of covenant or contract being in aid of the legal right, and having for its object the protection of the property from irreparable damage pending the trial of the right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able to show a good prima facie legal title to the right which he asserts. If the right at law under the covenant is clear or fairly made out, and the breach of it is clear or fairly made out, and serious injury is likely to arise from the breach, it is the duty of the Court to interfere before the hearing to restrain the breach. If the right at law under the covenant is clear or fairly made out, and the breach of it is clear or fairly made out, and serious injury is likely to arise from the breach, it is the duty of the Court to interfere before the hearing to restrain the breach. But if the right at law under the covenant is not clear or is not fairly made out, or the breach of it is doubtful and no serious injury can arise to the plaintiff, pending the trial of the right, the case resolves itself into a question of comparative injury, whether the defendant will be more damnified by the injunction being granted or the plaintiff by its being withheld. It is not necessary that the breach in respect of which the interference of the Court is sought should have been actually committed: it is enough that the defendant claims and insists on his right to do the act complained of, although he may not have actually done it. But the Court will not interfere unless it is clear that a breach is intended. The Court will not assume that a man means to violate his agreement.” 7. The main object of grant of temporary injunction is to protect the rights of a party pending litigation and also to prevent future injury leaving the matter as far as possible in status quo until the suit is finally heard and the rights of the parties are finally determined. 8. Though various principles have been laid down for the grant of temporary or interim injunction, but the Court must take into consideration three important conditions for the grant of temporary or interim injunction i.e., (i) Prima facie Case ; (ii) Balance of Convenience ; and (iii) Irreparable Injury Priam Facie Case.—Prima facie case means the plaintiff must, by making positive averments, assert that he has a strong case and a legal right to the property in suit, which has to be preserved and protected. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove by evidence. But, at least he must show that he has a strong prima facie case and there is every chance of his success in the case. Existence of prima facie case is sine qua non for the issuance of an interim injunction, provided the two other conditions namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied. But, at least he must show that he has a strong prima facie case and there is every chance of his success in the case. Existence of prima facie case is sine qua non for the issuance of an interim injunction, provided the two other conditions namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied. Prima facie case does not mean prima facie title. Prima facie case exists whenever there are issues which need trial and adjudicating. Necessary criteria for establishing a prima facie case is that the plaintiff has to show that he has bonafidely raised a substantial question which needs to be adjudicated at the trial of the suit. Balance of Convenience.—At the same time, mere existence of prima facie case is not sufficient for the grant of injunction. The plaintiff must also show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour in grant of injunction. The Court must see that there is a bona fide contest between the parties, and then, in which side the balance of convenience lies, in the event of success, if injunction is not issued, Injunction cannot be granted if balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. In a nutshell, it is clear that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of injunction has to prove that he had made out a prima facie to go for trial and also the balance of convenience is in his favour. However, when the party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial then the question of considering balance of convenience does not arise. Irreparable Injury.—Another important ingredient is the proof of irreparable injury. A party who seeks the aid of the Court must also satisfy the Court that its interference is necessary to protect him from the irreparable injury till the legal right claimed by him in the suit is established. The term ‘irreparable injury’ means such injury, which is a material one and could not be adequately remedied or compensated in terms of money or damages. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject-matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. 9. Further, an injunction can be applied for at any stage of the proceeding. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject-matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. 9. Further, an injunction can be applied for at any stage of the proceeding. But, no motion should be made without notice to the other side. However, if the Court is satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable or serious mischief, then in such a case order of ex parte injunction can be passed upon such terms as the Court otherwise thinks fit and proper. 10. From the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that before an order of temporary or itnerim injunction is passed a party has to prove the existence of the above three important ingredients. But, ultimately it is for the Court to decide as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to protect the property, which is the subject-matter of the suit from being damaged. The right of a party with regard to the property could be secured by issuing prohibitory order. Thus, where a party moves the Court for grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 or 2, he has to satisfy the Court that the opposite party has threatened or intended to remove or dispossess the property or threaten to dispossess him or otherwise cause injury in relation to the property or the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dispose of with a direction to theýÿ trial Court to consider and decide the suit (Regular Suit No. 598 of 2001), if the same is not decided till date, thenýÿ within a period of one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order thereafter. For a period of one year or till the decision is taken by the trial Court, whichever is earlier, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of order dated 15.11.2002 passed by this Court. ——————