When an Injunction is to be Refused

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

When an injunction is to be refused

By

S J Tubrazy

Section 56 of specific relief act states that as to when an injunction is to be refused. An injunction cannot be granted:

“56. An injunction cannot be granted ‑‑

(a) to stay a judicial proceedings pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings;

(b) to stay proceedings in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;

(c) to restrain persons from applying to any legislative body;

(d) to interfere with the public duties of any department of the Federal Government or any Provincial Government, or with the sovereign acts of a Foreign Government;

(e) to stay proceedings in any criminal matter;

(f) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;

(g) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;

(h) to prevent a continuing breach in which the applicant has acquiesced;

(i) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;

(j) when the conduct of the applicant or agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court;

(k) where the applicant has no personal interest in the matter:’

It is well‑settled law that these three sections must be read together. When so read, no injunction can be granted where there is no nuisance or interference with rights; or apprehension thereof.

In P.C.E. Paul and another v. W. Robson and others (AIR 1914 P.C. 45) which is the leading decision on the point, plaintiffs had brought an action for infringement of certain rights of light. It was conceded therein that they had acquired rights of light from the windows on the east side of their premises. The question for consideration was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to relief unless the obstruction complained of is a nuisance. Their Lordships noticed two conflicting views on the field. One stream of authorities gave contenance to the view that by enjoyment of light for a period of 20 years, there could be acquired an indefeasible right to the enjoyment of a like amount of light in the future. The conflicting stream of authorities supported the other view that nothing constituted an infringement of rights of light which did not amount to an actionable nuisance, and that the amplitude of previous enjoyment was no measure of the rights acquired thereby.

Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply