Permanent Injunction Suit in Bangladesh: Possession, Title and Enforcement in 2026

Permanent injunction suit Bangladesh: the 2026 framework

A permanent injunction suit Bangladesh landowners file is usually the first and cheapest line of defence against a threatened dispossession, an encroaching wall or a neighbour who will not stop building. The remedy comes from sections 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which allow a civil court, in its final decree, to restrain a defendant for good or to order him to undo what he has done.[1] The relief is discretionary, and the High Court Division keeps dismissing suits that ask for it on the wrong footing: where the plaintiff cannot prove exclusive possession, where the land is not identified, or where the real dispute is about title.[10] [11]

This guide deals with the final, perpetual remedy. It covers the statutory scheme, the possession requirement, when a declaration of title must be added under section 42, mandatory injunctions, the bars in section 56, court fees, limitation, evidence and the execution of the decree under Order XXI rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Interim orders while the suit is pending, stays, and suits to recover possession once the plaintiff has already been thrown out are covered in companion TRW guides, which we link rather than repeat.

Summary: A permanent injunction is granted only by the decree made at the hearing and on the merits of the suit. In a land case the plaintiff must prove exclusive possession of an identified property and at least a prima facie title; if title is seriously disputed, the plaintiff must also sue for a declaration of title, and if already dispossessed, for recovery of possession. The suit is valued by the plaintiff for court fees under section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act 1870, is normally governed by the six-year residuary limitation period, and the decree is enforced by detention, attachment or restoration under Order XXI rule 32.

Key point: A simple suit for a permanent injunction is not a way to test title. Relying on the Appellate Division's ruling in Rafizuddin Ahmed v Mongla Barman, 43 DLR (AD) 215, the High Court Division held in September 2025 that where the dispute involves complicated questions of title, the plaintiff must file a regular suit for declaration of title; a 2003 injunction suit failed on that ground twenty-two years after it was filed.[10]

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

How sections 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act work

Part III of the Specific Relief Act 1877 deals with preventive relief. Section 52 provides that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual. Under section 53, a temporary injunction lasts until a specified time or further order and may be granted at any stage of a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, while a perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit.[1] "Permanent" and "perpetual" are used interchangeably in Bangladeshi practice; the statute says perpetual.

Interim protection under Order XXXIX is tested on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, as our guide to temporary injunctions in Bangladesh explains. A permanent injunction suit Bangladesh courts decide on the merits requires proof, at trial, of the right, its invasion or threatened invasion, and a statutory ground.

Section 54: the five cases for a perpetual injunction

Section 54 allows a perpetual injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, express or implied; contractual obligations are judged by the specific performance rules in Chapter II. Where the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant the injunction in five cases: where the defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff; where there is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage; where pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief; where compensation probably could not be obtained; and where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.[1]

In a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh landowners bring, the third and fifth cases do most of the work: money rarely compensates for the loss of homestead or cultivated land, and one decree avoids a cycle of criminal complaints and repeat suits. The explanation to section 54 also treats a trade mark as property.[1]

Section 55: mandatory injunctions

Section 55 covers the positive remedy. Where, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction both to prevent the breach and to compel performance of the requisite acts. The illustrations include pulling down a building that obstructs the plaintiff's light.[1]

Section 57: negative covenants

Section 57 allows an injunction to enforce a negative agreement even where the court could not compel performance of the positive part of the contract, provided the applicant has not failed to perform its own side. Its illustration is a seller of goodwill who promises not to carry on the same business nearby.[1] It supports suits on exclusivity and restrictive covenants in commercial agreements and leases.

When a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh courts will decree: possession and prima facie title

Most injunction suits concern land, and the case law has settled into three requirements: exclusive possession, at least a prima facie title, and land identified precisely. Each is a common ground of failure.

Exclusive possession

In S M Prince v Tozammel Haque, decided on 15 December 2024, the High Court Division said that in a suit for a permanent injunction the plaintiff must prove exclusive possession of the suit land, with its boundary, to obtain a decree.[11] In Md Sultan Mia v Omar Kitab, decided on 4 September 2025, the court put the point the other way: the court may incidentally inquire into the prima facie title of the parties, and unless the plaintiff's possession is clearly established by the evidence, no decree for a permanent injunction can be made.[10]

An injunction protects an existing state of affairs. Without exclusive possession, a plaintiff has nothing for a prohibitory injunction to protect, and section 56(i) bars relief where an equally efficacious remedy, here a suit for possession, is available.[1] Such a plaintiff should sue for recovery of possession, with a declaration where needed, as our guide to recovery of possession in Bangladesh explains.

Prima facie title, examined incidentally

The court in an injunction suit does not grant a declaration of title, but it does look at title. In Sultan Mia, the plaintiffs said their predecessors had taken a jote settlement of the land and bought another part at an auction, but produced no document for either; the appellate court found no prima facie title and the High Court Division agreed.[10] A plaintiff relying on a chain of title must prove the chain, even in a suit for an injunction alone.

Identifying the land: Order VII rule 3

Order VII rule 3 of the Code requires a plaint concerning immovable property to describe it sufficiently to identify it and, where it can be identified by boundaries or survey record numbers, to state them. Order XX rule 9 imposes the same requirement on the decree.[3] In S M Prince, the plaintiffs claimed 102 decimals out of 106 decimals recorded in a revisional survey khatian, said they had bought in one plot but taken possession in another, and gave no boundary; none of their witnesses described one. The suit failed because the land was "not ascertainable and unspecified".[11]

The court distinguished the Appellate Division's decision in Karim Khan v Kala Chand Miah, 7 SCOB (2016) AD 32, where khatian and plot numbers were enough because the plaintiff claimed the whole of the plots, not a fraction.[11] The practical rule: where the claim is to whole plots, record numbers can suffice; where it is to part of a plot, give a boundary (chauhaddi) and a sketch map, and make sure every witness can describe it.

Co-sharers and unpartitioned land

An unpartitioned holding does not automatically defeat a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh co-sharers bring against an outsider. In Askor Ali Sikder v Hafizur Rahman, the plaintiff sued a college that had built on part of family land. The trial court found an encroachment of 0.0866 acres, relying in part on an advocate commissioner's report, and decreed the suit; the appellate court reversed because the co-sharers had not partitioned. On 11 June 2024 the High Court Division restored the decree, holding that where the other co-sharers raised no objection, the absence of partition was no reason to refuse an injunction against a stranger.[12] Disputes among co-sharers themselves are different and usually belong in a partition suit.

Permanent injunction or declaration of title: the section 42 question

Whether to sue for an injunction alone or add a declaration of title is the key drafting decision, and the commonest reason a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh plaintiffs win at trial is reversed on appeal or revision.

The testing-device rule

The governing statement is the Appellate Division's in Rafizuddin Ahmed v Mongla Barman, 43 DLR (AD) 215: if the dispute involves complicated questions of title, the plaintiff must establish title by a regular suit for declaration of title, and a simple suit for a permanent injunction should not be allowed to be used as a testing device to ascertain title. The High Court Division applied it in S M Prince in December 2024, where both sides claimed through the same recorded tenant by competing deeds, and in Sultan Mia in September 2025.[10] [11] In Prince the court said the plaintiffs had filed the suit "as an experiment to ascertain their title".[11]

A useful test before filing: if the defendant holds a registered deed, a mutation or a recent record of rights covering the same land, expect a title dispute and plead a declaration. Where the defendant is a trespasser with no paper claim, or a neighbour whose only dispute is whether he threatened to cross the line, a simple permanent injunction suit Bangladesh courts can decide on deeds, rent receipts, exclusive possession and proof of the threat is usually enough, and quicker.

Section 42 and its proviso

Section 42 allows a person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to property to sue a person who denies, or is interested to deny, that right for a declaration, and the plaintiff need not ask for further relief. The proviso then bars a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.[1] A plaintiff in possession whose title is clouded therefore pleads a declaration of title with a permanent injunction as the consequential relief. A plaintiff out of possession pleads a declaration with recovery of khas possession, and may add an injunction against further interference.

Do not split the claim

Order II rule 2 of the Code requires every suit to include the whole claim arising from the cause of action, and a plaintiff who omits a relief without the court's leave cannot later sue for it.[3] Where title is already under attack when the plaint is drafted, a bare injunction suit risks both dismissal under the testing-device rule and a bar on a later declaratory suit on the same cause. Where a forged or fraudulent deed is the source of the cloud, the plaint should also seek its cancellation under section 39, which the Act allows alongside a declaration.[1]

The table below compares the main options. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Mandatory injunctions: removing encroachments and undoing the wrong

A prohibitory injunction stops what has not yet happened; a mandatory injunction undoes what has. Where the defendant has already built a wall across a path, roofed over a common passage or put a structure on the plaintiff's land, the plaintiff needs a mandatory injunction under section 55 directing removal, usually combined with a prohibitory injunction against repetition.[1] Askor Ali Sikder was such a suit, for permanent and mandatory injunction against a college that had extended its construction onto the plaintiff's share.[12]

What the plaintiff must show

The text of section 55 sets three conditions: an obligation in the plaintiff's favour, a breach that can only be prevented or remedied by compelling specific acts, and acts the court is capable of enforcing.[1] Courts are more cautious with a mandatory injunction because it changes rather than preserves the position on the ground. The evidence must therefore show precisely what was built, where, and when. A local investigation by a commission under Order XXVI rule 9, which the court may order to elucidate any matter in dispute and which must report within the time fixed, not exceeding three months, is often decisive.[3] [12]

Delay and acquiescence

Section 56(h) bars an injunction to prevent a continuing breach in which the applicant has acquiesced, and section 56(j) bars relief where the applicant's own conduct disentitles it to the court's assistance.[1] A plaintiff who watches a building go up for months and sues only after completion invites both objections. The safer course is to send a written objection at the first sign of construction, file promptly and seek interim restraint at once, so that the final mandatory injunction is not asked to undo a fait accompli the plaintiff allowed to happen.

Section 56: when no injunction can be granted

Section 56 lists eleven cases in which no injunction, permanent or temporary, can be granted. Our guide to temporary injunctions covers them at the interim stage; at the final stage they work as follows.[1]

• Proceedings and legislatures, clauses (a) to (c) and (e): no injunction to stay a pending judicial proceeding (unless needed to prevent multiplicity), proceedings in a court not subordinate to the granting court, an application to a legislative body, or a criminal proceeding.
• Government, clause (d): no interference with the public duties of a government department or the sovereign acts of a foreign government.
• Contracts and nuisance, clauses (f) and (g): no injunction to prevent breach of a contract that would not be specifically enforced, or a nuisance that is not reasonably clear.
• Conduct, clauses (h), (j) and (k): no relief against a continuing breach the applicant has acquiesced in, for an applicant whose conduct disentitles it, or for one with no personal interest.
• Other remedy, clause (i): no injunction where equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by another usual mode of proceeding, except in breach of trust.

The clauses that decide final injunction suits

Three clauses matter most in final injunction suits. Clause (i) is the possession filter: a plaintiff without exclusive possession, already dispossessed, has the equally efficacious remedy of a possession suit. Clause (f) defeats injunctions that would indirectly enforce contracts the court would not specifically enforce, such as personal service contracts, unless section 57 applies to a negative covenant. Clause (d) limits suits against government departments acting in their public duties; a challenge to the legality of public action usually belongs in a writ petition rather than a civil suit.[1]

Executive officers are not a substitute for the civil court

Possession disputes in a pending suit are for the civil court, not executive officers. In Md Rowshan Khan Sagor v Gul Nahar Begum, a permanent injunction suit filed in April 2025, the defendants took possession of the land with the help of an Assistant Commissioner (Land) while the matter was pending before the Appellate Division. On 15 September 2026 the court described this as "patently illegal and high-handed", held that the Assistant Commissioner "lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate civil possession", and upheld an order restoring the plaintiff.[14]

Court fees, valuation and the right court

Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act 1870 governs both relevant categories. Clause (c) covers suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed, and clause (d) covers suits to obtain an injunction. In each case the fee is computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, and the plaintiff must state that amount; the valuation may not be set so low as to attract a court fee of less than Tk 200, a figure fixed by the Court-fees (Amendment) Act 2002.[4]

How the fee is calculated

The fee on the plaintiff's valuation is computed on the ad valorem scale in Schedule I, which was substituted in 2010 and caps the fee on any plaint at Tk 35,000.[4] A bare declaration with no consequential relief attracts a fixed fee of Tk 300 under article 12(iii) of Schedule II, but the proviso to section 42 means that route is rarely open to a plaintiff whose possession or title is under threat.[1] [4] Where possession is also claimed, section 7(v) applies its own valuation rules to that relief.[4]

Undervaluation and the court's power to revise

Section 8C allows the court, if it considers the subject matter wrongly valued, to revise the valuation, determine the correct figure and hold any inquiry it thinks fit, including a local investigation by commission under section 8D.[4] A token valuation for a valuable urban plot invites that inquiry and delay. Value honestly and explain the figure in the plaint.

Which court hears the suit

The valuation also decides the forum. Under section 19 of the Civil Courts Act 1887, as amended with effect from 2 November 2025, a Civil Judge hears suits valued up to Tk 15 lakh and a Senior Civil Judge suits up to Tk 25 lakh; the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2026 renamed the former Assistant and Senior Assistant Judges.[6] Commercial cases differ: the Commercial Courts Act 2026 treats disputes over agreements relating to immovable property used for trade or business, among other listed matters, as commercial disputes for the new Commercial Courts.[8]

Limitation for a permanent injunction suit

The Limitation Act 1908 has no article dedicated to suits for injunction. They generally fall within article 120, the residuary article, which gives six years from when the right to sue accrues for suits not otherwise provided for.[5] The right to sue usually accrues on the threat or act complained of, which is why plaints recite the date of the threat.[10] [11]

Continuing wrongs

Section 23 provides that in the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing wrong independent of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment during which the breach or wrong continues.[5] A continuing obstruction or trespass is not time-barred simply because it began long ago. But limitation is not the only clock. Delay feeds the acquiescence and conduct bars in section 56(h) and (j), and, where the defendant has been in adverse possession long enough, the plaintiff's title itself may be extinguished, which no injunction can revive.[1]

Where a declaration is added

Adding a declaration or cancellation can bring a shorter period into play. A suit to cancel an instrument, for example, has its own three-year article (article 91), and the court will apply the article that fits the substance of the relief, not the label.[5] Our guide to land dispute litigation in Bangladesh sets out how those periods interact; plead the date of knowledge precisely.

Evidence that wins a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh courts will uphold

A permanent injunction suit Bangladesh trial courts decree is frequently reversed on appeal or in revision because the record does not support possession, boundary or title.[10] [11] Since the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026, the facts in every plaint must be proved by affidavit, and examination-in-chief is given on affidavit under the new Order XVIII rule 4A, with cross-examination in court.[2] [3] The affidavit must therefore contain the whole possession case.

Documents of title and possession

• The chain of title: every registered deed from the recorded owner to the plaintiff, and inheritance documents for each succession. A missing link, such as an unproduced auction certificate or settlement document, sank the plaintiffs in Sultan Mia.[10]
• Records of right: certified copies of the CS, SA, RS and BS khatians for the plot, with any correction orders. Plot numbers in the plaint, the deeds and the khatians must match; a mismatch is the first point a defendant will take.[11]
• Mutation and rent: the mutation khatian and land development tax receipts (dakhila) in the plaintiff's name, with a continuous payment history. Our guide to land mutation in Bangladesh covers how to regularise the record before filing.
• Ancient documents: under section 90 of the Evidence Act 1872, the court may presume that a document thirty years old, produced from proper custody, was duly signed and executed.[7]

Witnesses and the burden on the defendant

Section 110 of the Evidence Act provides that where a person is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner lies on the person who says so.[7] Proving possession therefore shifts much of the title burden to the defendant. In S M Prince the suit failed partly because none of the witnesses could describe the boundary.[11] Prepare witnesses on the plot number, the boundary on each side, what is grown or built, and the date and words of the threat.

Commission reports

Where the location of a wall or the extent of an encroachment is disputed, ask for a local investigation by an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI rule 9 early in the suit.[3] A measured report, exhibited at trial, can carry the case on appeal, as it did in Askor Ali Sikder.[12]

Procedure: from plaint to decree

An injunction suit follows the ordinary procedure in our guide to civil suit filing in Bangladesh; what is specific is the framing of the prayers, the schedule and the interim application. The sequence we follow is below.

Swipe or scroll →

Mediation

Mandatory pre-case mediation under the Legal Aid Services Act 2000, as amended in 2026, applies only to scheduled disputes. The list reported in April 2026 covered family claims, house rent, partition-type disputes, parental maintenance, small cheque claims and dowry violence, but not a stand-alone injunction suit.[9] Check the current schedule before filing. Court-annexed mediation under section 89A of the Code remains available once the suit is filed.[2] In commercial disputes, section 7(1) of the Commercial Courts Act 2026 requires pre-suit mediation where the suit does not involve urgent interim relief and rules prescribe the procedure.[8]

Interim protection while the suit runs

Injunction suits are slow. The suit in Sultan Mia was filed in 2003 and finally decided in 2025; the suit enforced in Ishrat Amin was filed in 1984.[10] [13] A temporary injunction or status quo order under Order XXXIX, applied for with the plaint, protects the position in the meantime. Where interim orders are stayed by a higher court, the rules discussed in our guide to stay orders in Bangladesh apply.

Appeal and revision

The decree is appealable in the ordinary way, and the cases discussed here followed the usual path: an appeal to the district court, followed by civil revision to the High Court Division under section 115 of the Code.[2] [10] [11] Our guides to civil appeals and civil revision cover time limits and grounds. The trial record decides most injunction appeals.

Executing a decree for injunction under Order XXI rule 32

A permanent injunction suit Bangladesh plaintiffs win is only as good as its enforcement. Order XXI rule 32(1) provides that where a party against whom an injunction decree has been passed has had an opportunity of obeying it and has wilfully failed to do so, the decree may be enforced by detention in the civil prison, by attachment of property, or by both.[3] Section 58 of the Code limits detention under a decree that is not for money to six weeks.[2]

Corporations, sale and substituted performance

Against a corporation, rule 32(2) allows attachment of its property or, with the court's leave, detention of its directors or other principal officers, or both. If an attachment has remained in force for one year without obedience, rule 32(3) allows the attached property to be sold on the decree-holder's application, with compensation to the decree-holder out of the proceeds. Under rule 32(5), the court may instead, or as well, direct that the act required be done by the decree-holder or another appointed person at the judgment-debtor's cost.[3] That last power is the practical tool for executing a mandatory injunction to demolish a wall the defendant refuses to remove.

No fresh suit, but a proper inquiry

Ishrat Amin v Shahjahan Miah, decided on 19 January 2025, is the current leading statement. The decree-holder had won a 1984 injunction suit, upheld through the Appellate Division in 2021, and in 2023 alleged that the judgment-debtors had dispossessed him from part of the land. The trial court first ordered restoration ex parte, then recalled its order, saying a fresh suit for possession was needed.[13]

The High Court Division held that a violated decree of permanent injunction is enforced under Order XXI rule 32(1), not by a fresh suit, following Safar Ali Miah v Badsha, 45 DLR 483, affirmed in Zainal Abedin v Md Abdur Rahim, 53 DLR (AD) 69. With section 151 of the Code, the executing court can also direct the judgment-debtor to restore possession of land taken in breach.[13]

But, following Jibon Bima Corporation v Md Mohibul Majid, 52 DLR 186, it insisted on an inquiry: wilful disobedience must be proved by cogent, independent and reliable evidence before any order is made.[13] Because the judgment-debtor said the land she held was outside the decree, the court required a local investigation, directed that the application be registered as an execution case, and asked for disposal within three months.[13]

Time and the executing court's limits

Section 48 of the Code, which bars fresh execution applications twelve years after the decree, expressly excludes "a decree granting an injunction".[2] It remains enforceable against later breaches, but move promptly after each breach while the evidence is fresh. The executing court cannot go beyond the decree, so its schedule is decisive: in Ishrat Amin a mismatch between survey khatian references in the underlying documents and in the decree became the judgment-debtor's main defence.[13]

Police assistance under section 94A

Section 94A, inserted by the 2026 amendment, allows the court, for the purpose of executing any decree or order, to direct executive authorities, including law enforcement agencies, to assist a person it designates and to report compliance within a specified time.[2] In Rowshan Khan Sagor the High Court Division used it to direct the Deputy Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police and the local officer-in-charge to secure restoration of a plaintiff's possession and to report within twenty working days.[14] Decree-holders should ask for a section 94A direction whenever obstruction is likely. Wider execution practice is covered in our guide to execution cases in Bangladesh.

Common mistakes in a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh plaintiffs file

• Suing for an injunction when title is the real fight: where the defendant holds a competing deed or record, plead a declaration of title under section 42, or the suit may be dismissed as a testing device.[10]
• Suing for an injunction after dispossession: a plaintiff out of possession needs recovery of possession; section 56(i) bars the injunction.[1]
• A vague schedule: claiming part of a plot without a boundary, or with plot numbers that do not match the deeds, defeated the plaintiffs in S M Prince.[11]
• Thin evidence of exclusive possession: deeds without khatians, rent receipts and credible witnesses rarely survive the appellate court as last court of fact.[10]
• Token valuation: it invites a section 8C inquiry and delay.[4]
• Waiting while the building goes up: delay supports the acquiescence bar and makes a mandatory injunction harder to obtain.[1]
• A fresh suit after breach: the remedy for violation of the decree is Order XXI rule 32 in execution, with evidence of wilful disobedience.[13]

For the defendant, the same list is a checklist of defences: test the plaintiff's exclusive possession, demand the boundary, put the competing title on record early, and challenge an unrealistic valuation. A defendant with strong title should consider its own suit for declaration of title, since dismissal of an injunction suit does not decide title in its favour.

Where the injunction suit fits in a wider land dispute

An injunction suit seldom runs alone. Section 145 proceedings, mutation and record correction cases and parallel title suits are common, and an order in one can shape the others, as Rowshan Khan Sagor shows.[14] Map and disclose every pending proceeding; the section 56(j) conduct bar punishes a plaintiff who hides an adverse order. Our overview of how to resolve land disputes in Bangladesh sets out the other routes.

What to watch in 2026

Three developments will shape how a permanent injunction suit Bangladesh courts hear is run over the coming year. First, the 2026 amendments to the Code, with affidavit pleadings, affidavit evidence-in-chief and section 94A, should shorten trials and make decrees easier to enforce.[2] [3] Second, the High Court Division's insistence on a proper inquiry before Order XXI rule 32 orders, and its readiness to direct restoration of possession in execution, will make enforcement more contested and more effective at once.[13] Third, the new Commercial Courts will begin to decide injunction claims over trade premises and commercial covenants on their own timetable.[8]

The decisive work is done before filing: choosing between a simple injunction and a declaration of title, fixing the schedule, valuing honestly and assembling proof of possession. TRW acts for owners, developers and businesses in injunction, declaration and possession suits and in their execution. Our real estate disputes practice and land records team can review your title and possession evidence, or you can contact TRW directly.

Frequently asked questions

What is a permanent injunction suit in Bangladesh?

It is a civil suit asking the court, in its final decree, to restrain the defendant permanently from an act such as dispossession or construction, or to order the defendant to undo it. The power comes from sections 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877.[1]

How is a permanent injunction different from a temporary injunction?

A temporary injunction lasts until a set time or further order and can be granted at any stage under the Code of Civil Procedure. A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and on the merits.[1]

Must I be in possession to sue for a permanent injunction?

In a land case, yes. The High Court Division requires proof of exclusive possession of an identified property; a plaintiff already dispossessed should sue for recovery of possession instead.[10] [11]

When do I need to add a declaration of title?

When the dispute involves complicated questions of title, such as competing deeds or records. A simple injunction suit cannot be used as a testing device for title, following 43 DLR (AD) 215.[10]

What court fee is payable?

The fee is calculated on the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief under section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act 1870, using the ad valorem scale, with a minimum fee of Tk 200 and a maximum of Tk 35,000 on a plaint.[4]

What is the limitation period?

Injunction suits generally fall under article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, six years from when the right to sue accrues. For a continuing wrong, a fresh period runs while the wrong continues under section 23.[5]

Can the court order demolition of an encroaching structure?

Yes. Section 55 allows a mandatory injunction compelling the acts needed to prevent the breach, and its illustrations include pulling down an obstructing building.[1]

Can I get an injunction against a government office?

Not to interfere with the public duties of a government department, which section 56(d) bars. Challenges to the lawfulness of public action are usually brought by writ petition.[1]

What if the defendant breaks the decree?

Apply to the executing court under Order XXI rule 32 for detention, attachment or both. After an inquiry proving wilful disobedience, the court can also direct restoration of possession.[3] [13]

Does an injunction decree expire after twelve years?

Section 48 of the Code, which bars fresh execution applications after twelve years, expressly excludes decrees granting an injunction.[2]