If you have ever been in civil litigation, you know how important a temporary injunction is — it can freeze a property transaction, stop construction, or preserve a status quo while the main case is heard. Courts decide whether to grant a temporary injunction on a summary basis, looking at three conditions. But increasingly, trial courts and High Courts have been writing lengthy, detailed orders on injunction applications — effectively conducting a full trial at this preliminary stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has strongly deprecated this practice.

What the Court Held

Courts hearing applications for temporary injunction must confine their orders to recording findings — with reasons — on only three conditions:

  1. Prima facie case: does the applicant have a serious question to be tried — a case that is not frivolous?
  2. Balance of convenience: will greater harm be caused by granting or refusing the injunction?
  3. Irreparable injury: will the applicant suffer harm that cannot be compensated in money if the injunction is refused?

Courts must not embark upon an examination of the final merits of the case or the probable outcome of the trial at this stage. Lengthy, merits-laden orders — whether from trial courts or appellate courts — are not appropriate at the interlocutory stage.

The Three-Condition Test

A temporary injunction should be granted when: (1) the applicant has a prima facie case — a serious question that needs to be tried; (2) the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction; and (3) the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused. All three must be examined — but the examination must be summary, not a full trial.

Practical Implications for Civil Litigants

✅

When filing for a temporary injunction: your application must specifically address all three conditions with specific facts. A vague application that doesn't address balance of convenience or irreparable injury will fail.

✅

When opposing an injunction application: focus on disproving one or more of the three conditions — show the applicant has no prima facie case, or that balance of convenience favours you, or that any harm can be compensated in money.

✅

Appellate courts can interfere with an injunction order only where the lower court exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to settled legal principles — not merely because the appellate court would have decided differently.

Case Reference
Shruti Manav Sharma & Anr. v. Sunanina Singh & Ors. | Hon'ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon'ble Justice Alok Aradhe | August 12, 2026 | Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Frequently Asked Questions

Questions people commonly search on this topic

What are the conditions for getting a temporary injunction in India? +
There are three conditions: (1) the applicant must have a prima facie case — a serious question to be tried; (2) the balance of convenience must favour granting the injunction; and (3) the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused. All three must be satisfied.
Can a court refuse a temporary injunction on merits of the case? +
No. Courts should not examine the final merits of the case at the stage of a temporary injunction application. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of writing lengthy, merits-laden orders at this stage. The examination must be confined to the three conditions only.
What is balance of convenience in an injunction application? +
Balance of convenience examines whether greater harm or inconvenience would result from granting the injunction (to the respondent) or from refusing it (to the applicant). The court grants the injunction if the harm from refusal outweighs the harm from granting.
What is irreparable injury in civil litigation? +
Irreparable injury means harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money at the end of the trial. If the applicant can be compensated in damages, the courts may refuse the injunction and instead award damages at the end of the case.