The Indispensable Threshold: A Juridical Analysis of 'Prima Facie Case' in the Grant of Interlocutory Injunctions

Introduction

The remedy of an interlocutory or temporary injunction, governed primarily by Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a cornerstone of civil litigation in India. It is an equitable, discretionary relief designed to protect a party from injury by violation of their rights during the pendency of a suit, thereby preserving the subject matter in status quo. The Indian judiciary has consistently articulated a tripartite test for the grant of such injunctions: (i) the existence of a prima facie case; (ii) the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff; and (iii) the likelihood of the plaintiff suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is refused. While these three pillars are conjunctive, a formidable body of jurisprudence, including several landmark pronouncements by the Supreme Court of India, has established the prima facie case as the foundational gateway. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the concept of 'prima facie case', arguing that its establishment is not merely the first among equals but an indispensable, non-negotiable threshold, the failure of which renders any consideration of the other two factors moot.

The Jurisprudential Framework of Interlocutory Injunctions

The grant of an interlocutory injunction is a matter requiring the profound exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. And Others v. Coca Cola Co. And Others (1995 SCC 5 545) articulated that the object of this relief is to "mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved." This protective measure, however, must be balanced against the defendant's right to exercise their own legal rights. The Court's role is to weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies.

This discretion is not arbitrary but must be "sound" and "reasonable," guided by established legal principles. As affirmed in Dalpat Kumar And Another v. Prahlad Singh And Others (1992 SCC 1 719), the court must be circumspect, looking into the conduct of the parties and the probable injuries to either side. The equitable nature of the relief also demands that the party seeking it must approach the court with clean hands, a principle underscored in Seema Arshad Zaheer And Others v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai And Others (2006 SCC 5 282).

Deconstructing the 'Prima Facie Case': The Foundational Pillar

Defining the Concept: A Substantial Question for Trial

The judiciary has been meticulous in distinguishing a 'prima facie case' from a 'prima facie title'. The latter requires establishment through evidence at trial, whereas the former is a lower, yet substantive, threshold. The Supreme Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors v. The Puna Municipal Corpn. & Anr (1995), and reiterated in numerous subsequent judgments including THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM (2023) and Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad v. Mahaboob Alam Khan And Others (2012), clarified this distinction:

Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits.

This definition implies that the plaintiff need not prove their case to the hilt at the interlocutory stage. Instead, they must demonstrate that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there are serious questions to be tried. The court in Sri Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. Sri Siddhaganga Mutt (1989) noted that the court should not embark on a "nit-picking operation" or a "mini trial" but must be assured that the questions raised "merit serious consideration at a subsequent stage." The focus is on the existence of a triable issue, which necessitates the preservation of the status quo until final adjudication.

The Indispensable Threshold: The Gateway to Equitable Relief

The most critical aspect of the prima facie case is its role as a condition precedent. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that in the absence of a prima facie case, the court cannot grant an injunction, regardless of the merits of the arguments on balance of convenience or irreparable injury. This principle was articulated with unmistakable clarity in Kashi Math Samsthan And Another v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy And Another (2010 SCC 1 689):

...it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted.

This position has been consistently upheld in cases like Babadeen & Another v. Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Bahraich & Others (2014) and SHRI VIKUTO ACHUMI AND 2 ORS v. SHRI PHUSHITO AYEMI AND 2 ORS (2024). The logic is compelling: the court's intervention is justified only to protect a right that appears, at first blush, to exist. If no such right is demonstrated, there is nothing for the court to protect, and restraining the defendant would be an unjust imposition.

Judicial Application and Scrutiny

The determination of a prima facie case requires a careful application of judicial mind to the materials on record. In Seema Arshad Zaheer, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to grant an injunction because the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case that their structures were authorized. The Court held that where documents clearly show illegality, an injunction should not be granted "merely on the ground of sympathy or hardship." This demonstrates that a prima facie case must be grounded in law and fact, not emotion.

Furthermore, the court must provide reasoned orders. In BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED (2024), the Supreme Court emphasized that in granting interim relief, "the court must provide detailed reasons and analyze how the three-fold test is satisfied." A failure to consider the evidence on record while deciding the question of prima facie case can lead to the order being set aside as "non-speaking," as observed by the Rajasthan High Court in DIWAKAR RATHOR v. GURUTEJ SINGH (2022).

The Interplay with Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury

While the prima facie case is the entry point, its existence alone is not sufficient to secure an injunction. The Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar and Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke explicitly stated, "Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction." The plaintiff must proceed to satisfy the other two conditions. The court must weigh the substantial mischief or injury likely to be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused against that which is likely to be caused to the defendant if it is granted.

Irreparable injury is defined not as an injury that cannot be physically repaired, but one that "cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages" (Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke). The strength of the prima facie case often influences the court's assessment of these other factors. A strong prima facie case may lead a court to more readily conclude that the balance of convenience tilts in the plaintiff's favour, as any infringement of a clear right would likely cause significant harm.

In M. Gurudas And Others v. Rasaranjan And Others (2006 SCC 8 367), the Court found that the plaintiffs had not made out a strong prima facie case regarding a valid adoption. This weakness in the foundational claim led the Court to question the propriety of the injunction, noting the significant hardship it caused the appellants who were restrained from dealing with their properties. This illustrates the interconnected yet hierarchical nature of the three-pronged test.

Appellate Review and Judicial Discretion

The principle of judicial restraint in appellate review of discretionary orders is well-established. In the seminal case of Wander Ltd. And Another v. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990 SCC SUPP 1 727), the Supreme Court held that an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court and substitute its own, unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised "arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions."

The finding on a prima facie case is a crucial element of this discretionary exercise. If a trial court grants an injunction without a properly established prima facie case, it can be considered an arbitrary exercise of discretion, warranting appellate interference. Conversely, as seen in Wander Ltd., where the Division Bench granted an injunction by improperly overturning the Single Judge's correct finding on the absence of a prima facie case for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court stepped in to correct the error. This reinforces that the correct application of the prima facie test is a settled principle of law, the disregard of which justifies appellate intervention.

Conclusion

The tripartite test for granting interlocutory injunctions represents a delicate balance between protecting plaintiffs from potential injustice and preserving the rights of defendants. Within this framework, the establishment of a prima facie case has been unequivocally cemented by the Indian judiciary as the foundational and non-negotiable prerequisite. It is the key that unlocks the door to the court's equitable jurisdiction. The jurisprudence, from Dalpat Kumar to Kashi Math Samsthan, consistently affirms that without a bona fide, substantial question to be tried, considerations of convenience and injury become irrelevant. This principle ensures that the potent weapon of injunction is not wielded lightly but is reserved for cases where there is a genuine, legally cognizable right in need of provisional protection. For legal practitioners and the judiciary alike, the lesson is clear: the path to an interlocutory injunction begins and, if not successfully traversed, ends with the prima facie case.