Civil Suits & Injunctionsदीवानी वाद एवं व्यादेश — CPC 1908 / Specific Relief Act 1963 / Commercial Courts Act 2015

The three tests laid down in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1991 SC) are: (1) Prima facie case — the plaintiff must show an arguable case in their favour — not necessarily a strong case, just one that deserves consideration; (2) Balance of convenience — greater hardship to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted vs the inconvenience to the defendant if it is granted; (3) Irreparable injury — injury that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages after the suit is decided. All three tests must be satisfied. Courts cannot grant injunctions as a matter of course — the party seeking must satisfy all three.

Temporary injunction (O.39 CPC): granted during the pendency of the suit — maintains status quo until the suit is decided. Can be ex parte (without notice) in urgent cases. Must be confirmed within 30 days if granted ex parte. Modifiable on change of circumstances. Permanent injunction (SRA S.38): granted at the conclusion of the suit after full trial — permanently prohibits the defendant from doing the restrained act. Cannot be modified unless by a fresh suit. Mandatory injunction: compels the defendant to do a positive act — granted in exceptional cases where damages are inadequate.

Yes — significantly. Before 2018: specific performance under SRA S.10 was at the discretion of the court — courts could refuse it if money compensation seemed adequate. After 2018 Amendment: S.10 now uses 'shall' — specific performance is a right of the plaintiff. Courts must grant it unless: (a) the plaintiff fails to prove readiness and willingness; (b) the contract falls under the exceptions in the amended S.14; (c) the case is of a personal nature. Buyers who have agreements to sell for immovable property now have a significantly stronger right to enforce those agreements.

Order 37 CPC provides a summary procedure for suits based on: negotiable instruments (bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes), written contracts, and claims for a liquidated amount. In a summary suit — the defendant cannot contest the suit as of right. The defendant must apply for 'leave to defend' — showing a genuine triable issue. If leave is not granted — the court passes a decree immediately. If conditional leave is granted — defendant may have to deposit the disputed amount as a condition. Summary suits are significantly faster than regular civil suits.

Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — a commercial dispute of 'specified value' goes to the Commercial Court. In Delhi — the specified value threshold is ₹3 lakh and above. Disputes below ₹3 lakh go to the regular Civil Court. The specified value is determined by the market value of the subject matter or the value of the claim — whichever is higher. Types of commercial disputes covered: contracts, trade, insurance, real estate (commercial), intellectual property, admiralty, and others listed in the Act.

No — mandatory only for commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 S.12A. For non-commercial civil suits (matrimonial, family, property disputes not commercial in nature) — pre-institution mediation is recommended but not mandatory. For commercial disputes — Patil Automation (2022 SC) confirmed that S.12A mediation is mandatory and failure to comply is a ground for rejection of plaint. Exception: if the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief (injunction) — they can file the suit directly and simultaneously with a certificate that mediation was not possible due to urgency.

Under the Limitation Act, 1963: General civil suits — 3 years from date of cause of action (Art.113). Specific performance of contract — 3 years from date fixed for performance or refusal (Art.54). Declaration — 3 years from date right denied (Art.58). Suit on a judgment or decree — 12 years. Suit for possession of immovable property — 12 years (adverse possession). The court must dismiss a time-barred suit even if the defendant does not raise the plea (S.3 Limitation Act). Delay can be condoned under S.5 for applications (not suits) if sufficient cause is shown.

Lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882): during the pendency of a suit touching any right in immovable property — no party to the suit can transfer the property to affect the rights of the other party. Any transfer made during lis pendens does not bind the non-transferring party — even if the purchaser had no notice of the suit. Effect: if the plaintiff wins the suit — the decree binds the property despite the transfer. Practical use: once a civil suit is filed for specific performance, injunction, or title — the defendant cannot sell the property to defeat the decree.

District Court: handles all civil disputes — family, property, money recovery, injunctions, contracts — subject to pecuniary jurisdiction (in Delhi — up to ₹2 crore). Regular CPC procedure — timelines more flexible. Commercial Court: handles commercial disputes of specified value (₹3 lakh+). Strict timelines — written statement within 30 days (max 120 days), case management hearings, mandatory mediation. Delhi HC Commercial Division: commercial disputes above ₹2 crore. Commercial Court disposal is significantly faster — strict no-adjournment policy and time-bound disposal.

Yes — Order 39 Rule 3 CPC: court can grant an ex parte temporary injunction without giving notice to the defendant if: (a) the matter is urgent; (b) giving notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction; (c) the plaintiff shows prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The ex parte injunction must be confirmed or vacated within 30 days after hearing both parties. Morgan Stanley (1994 SC) guidelines: ex parte injunctions should be granted sparingly — only in genuine urgency. Court must record reasons for not giving notice.