No Temporary Injunction Can Be Granted In Appeal Against Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that there ought to be a subsisting plaint to seek an injunction order. The Court added that an injunction order loses its validity upon rejection of the plaint and would be back in operation only when the plaint is restored/revived.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma heard the case where the Respondent, along with an appeal against the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, had also filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against the Appellant.

Though the appeal was pending for the High Court's consideration, by the order impugned, a temporary injunction was granted to the Respondent, prompting the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court observed that the High Court erred in granting the injunction, despite the plaint was rejected. Once the plaint was rejected, it became non-existent, and therefore, no injunction order could survive unless the plaint is revived.

“we observe that in a case where an appeal is filed by being aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought not to have granted an order of temporary injunction. We say so for the reason that the plaint itself has been rejected by the Commercial Court and the correctness or otherwise of the said rejection is a matter at large before the High Court. When the plaint itself has been rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against such an order is a continuation of a suit.”, the court observed.

“once the plaint has been rejected by the trial court i.e. the Commercial Court, in the instant case, until it is revived / restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate against the defendant in the suit, who is the respondent in the appeal filed against the rejection of the plaint. In other words, it is necessary that there ought to be a subsisting plaint in order to seek an order of temporary injunction.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: IEEE MUMBAI SECTION WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS GLOBAL IEEE INSTITUTE FOR ENGINEERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : M/S. Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitesh Jain, Adv. Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv. Ms. Samrudhi Chothani, Adv. Ms. Rudhdi Walawalkar, Adv. Mr. Ira S Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Varad S Kolhe, Adv. Ms. Pritha Suri, Adv. Mr. Tabeer Riyaz, Adv. Mr. Saumitr Malviya, Adv. Mr. Ojaswi shankar, Adv.