How to Obtain a Temporary Injunction in Bangladesh 2026: Tests, Procedure and Appeals

How a temporary injunction Bangladesh courts grant works in 2026

A temporary injunction Bangladesh courts grant is the quickest way to stop a sale, a demolition, a dispossession or a breach of contract while a suit is pending. The power sits in Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 94 of the Code, and the Specific Relief Act 1877 confirms that temporary injunctions are regulated by the Code and may be granted at any stage of a suit.[1] [2] [5] Getting one is rarely difficult in principle. Getting one that survives appeal, revision and years of trial is a different matter.

This guide covers the whole process: the statutory basis, the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, ad interim orders and notice, status quo, drafting the petition, appeals under Order XLIII and civil revision, the consequences of violation, and the land and commercial settings where most applications arise. It also explains how the Commercial Courts Act 2026 changes the route for commercial disputes.

Summary: A temporary injunction is sought by application in a pending suit under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, usually read with section 151. The court must give the other side notice unless delay would defeat the purpose, and it grants relief only where the applicant shows a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in its favour and a risk of irreparable loss. Orders under rules 1, 2 and 4 are appealable under Order XLIII rule 1(r), and disobedience can lead to attachment of property and up to six months in civil prison.

Key point: An ex parte ad interim injunction between private parties is short-lived by design. Rule 5A(3) of Order XXXIX requires the court to hear and decide the matter on merit within seven days of the opposite party's appearance, and the order stands vacated if the party that obtained it seeks an adjournment or fails to attend. In commercial suits, section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act 2026 bars appeals from interlocutory orders and allows revision to the High Court Division within sixty days.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

The legal basis for a temporary injunction in a civil suit

Section 52 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 states that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual. Section 53 defines temporary injunctions as those that continue until a specified time or until the further order of the court, and provides that they may be granted at any period of a suit and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.[5] A perpetual injunction, by contrast, can only be granted by the decree at the hearing and on the merits.

Section 94(c) of the Code allows a court, to prevent the ends of justice being defeated, to grant a temporary injunction and, on disobedience, to commit the person to civil prison and attach and sell his property; section 94(e) adds a power to make other just and convenient interlocutory orders.[2] Order XXXIX sets out when and how the power is used.[1]

Order XXXIX rule 1: protecting the property in dispute

Rule 1 applies where it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by a party, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding creditors. The court may grant a temporary injunction, or make any other order to stay and prevent the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property, until disposal of the suit or further orders.[1]

Order XXXIX rule 2: restraining a breach or injury

Rule 2 is wider. In any suit to restrain a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, the plaintiff may apply at any time after the suit begins, before or after judgment, to restrain the breach or injury complained of or any like breach relating to the same contract, property or right. The court may impose terms as to duration, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise.[1]

Applications are almost always framed under "Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151", invoking the court's inherent power alongside the specific rules. The High Court Division judgments discussed below follow that pattern.[8] [10]

Where the Specific Relief Act forbids an injunction

Section 56 lists cases in which no injunction can be granted, including: to stay a judicial proceeding already pending, unless needed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings; to interfere with the public duties of a Government department; to stay criminal proceedings; to prevent breach of a contract that would not be specifically enforced; to restrain a continuing breach the applicant has acquiesced in; where equally efficacious relief is certainly available by another usual mode; where the applicant's conduct disentitles it; and where the applicant has no personal interest.[5] Every temporary injunction Bangladesh courts are asked to grant should be checked against this list.

Is there a 2024 amendment to the Specific Relief Act?

No. The consolidated text on the Laws of Bangladesh portal records only one post-1973 amending statute, the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act 2004, which inserted section 21A on unregistered contracts for sale of immovable property from 1 July 2005. Sections 52 to 57 show no amendment.[5] Any claim that a recent amendment restricts injunctions should be checked against the gazette.

The three tests every temporary injunction Bangladesh court applies

Order XXXIX does not list the tests. The courts have supplied them, and they are now applied as a settled formula. In Md Fazle Morhal v Nawsher Ali, decided on 29 October 2025, the High Court Division recorded that the trial court had found "the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury" in the plaintiffs' favour before granting a temporary injunction to protect their possession.[8] All three must be shown; weakness on one is rarely cured by strength on another.

Prima facie case

The applicant must show a serious, arguable case on the right it asserts, usually title, possession or a contractual right. It does not have to prove the case, but it must show more than an assertion. In Iqbal Mahmud v Chairman, Bangladesh Jute Corporation, decided on 7 December 2024, the High Court Division said that before granting an injunction the court must see "the strong prima-facie case" made out on the pleadings and other legal aspects.[14] The applicant there was a lessee whose position had already been examined and rejected in an earlier writ petition, so no prima facie case existed.

In possession disputes, the evidence is usually documentary. In Fazle Morhal the plaintiffs relied on their mutation and regular payment of rent as collateral evidence of possession, and both courts below accepted it.[8]

Balance of convenience

The court compares the harm to each side if the injunction is granted or refused, and asks which course carries the lower risk of injustice. Where the comparison is even, courts increasingly preserve the existing position rather than favour either party. In Mohammad Akteruzzaman v Mohammad Amzad Hossain, decided on 4 June 2023, the court held that an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 requires it "first and foremost" to examine the balance of convenience and inconvenience, and upheld an injunction because proceeding with a mutation case before title was decided would frustrate the suit.[13]

Irreparable loss

The applicant must show that, without the injunction, it will suffer harm that money cannot properly repair or that would make the suit pointless. Demolition, construction, transfer to a third party, payment of compensation to the wrong claimant and loss of a business premises are the common examples. The Specific Relief Act uses similar language for perpetual injunctions, which may be granted where pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief or where there is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage.[5] In Md Salahuddin v Rowshan Ara Begum, the appellate court below relied on the principle that relief should be granted only where the applicant would otherwise suffer irreparable loss or injury.[9]

Conduct, delay and candour

Relief is discretionary, and section 56 bars it where the applicant has acquiesced or its conduct disentitles it.[5] Disclose earlier proceedings: in Iqbal Mahmud the court relied on findings in an earlier writ petition, which had noted a fraudulent representation by the petitioner.[14]

Ad interim injunctions and the notice rules

An ad interim injunction is a holding order made before the full hearing. Rule 3 of Order XXXIX states the default: the court shall in all cases, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application to the opposite party and be satisfied that notice has been duly served, or could not be served because the opposite party refused it. The second limb was added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Third Amendment) Act 2003.[1]

When notice can be dispensed with

The proviso to rule 3 lets the court dispense with notice where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay. There is one exception. Notice cannot be dispensed with in the case of a sale of goods, for default in paying at the stipulated time a debt for which the goods were pledged with a bank.[1] A borrower trying to stop a bank selling pledged goods should therefore expect the bank to be heard first.

Rule 3A then deals with service. Any notice under rule 3 must be returned to the court, with or without service, within seven days of issue; if it comes back unserved, the court must have it served again within seven days in accordance with rule 20 of Order V, and that service is deemed due service.[1] A respondent cannot defeat the process by avoiding the process server.

The seven-day rule for ex parte orders

Rule 5A, also inserted in 2003, is the most important protection for respondents. Between private parties, sub-rule (2) requires notice unless the object would be defeated by the delay. Under sub-rule (3), if an ad interim or temporary injunction is passed ex parte, the court shall hear and dispose of the matter on merit within seven days of the opposite party's appearance, unless that period is extended at the opposite party's request.[1]

The same sub-rule contains a sanction aimed at applicants who obtain an ex parte order and then delay. The order shall stand vacated if the party at whose instance it was passed prays for adjournment or, when called upon by the court, fails to attend the hearing.[1] An applicant must be ready to argue the full application within days of the respondent's appearance.

Injunctions against the Government and statutory bodies

Rule 5A(1) prohibits a court from passing any ex parte ad interim or temporary injunction at the instance of a private party against the Government or a statutory public authority, without reasonable notice to the Government Pleader and an opportunity of being heard, if the order is likely to prejudice or interfere with any measure to implement a development programme or development work, or otherwise harm the public interest.[1] This sits alongside section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, which bars injunctions that interfere with the public duties of a Government department.[5]

Section 56(d) is not absolute: in Akteruzzaman, discussed below, the court upheld an injunction staying a mutation case.[13] Where the complaint is about the lawfulness of a public body's action, a writ petition is usually the better route; see our guide to writ petitions in Bangladesh.

The table below compares the interim orders most often sought. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Status quo orders and restoring the status quo ante

The Code does not use the phrase, but the status quo order is the interim order courts make most often, usually under section 151 or as modified relief under Order XXXIX, binding both sides. In Salahuddin, the trial court made an interim status quo order on a section 151 application in 2013 and, in February 2024, allowed the temporary injunction application "in the modified form" directing both parties to maintain status quo.[9]

When status quo is preferred to an injunction

Where both parties claim possession and the point cannot be decided without evidence, a one-sided injunction risks deciding the suit at the interim stage. In Fazle Morhal the High Court Division therefore made a status quo order as to possession and position until the suit was decided, and directed disposal within six months.[8]

A status quo order must say what it covers

Vague orders do not survive. In Salahuddin, decided on 4 March 2026, the plaint had been amended to remove five schedules of land listed in the vested property gazette, but the injunction application was not amended. The trial court directed status quo "without specifying the land", and the High Court Division set the order aside, also holding that the courts below had ignored the urban setting and dilapidated state of the buildings.[9] Every status quo order should identify the schedule of property and say whether it covers possession, position, construction or transfer.

Mandatory relief to undo a fait accompli

A party that changes the position in breach of a status quo order can be ordered to reverse it. In Sahab Uddin v Saleha Mahbuba Chowdhurani, decided on 12 March 2025, the defendant raised sixteen pucca pillars and cast a roof while such an order was in force. One Advocate Commissioner's report recorded the land lying vacant; a later one recorded the new structure.[10]

The trial court granted a temporary injunction and directed the defendant to restore the status quo ante, and the High Court Division upheld it. The court relied on the Appellate Division's statement, in Azizur Rahman Chowdhury v Tauhiduddin Chowdhury, 16 BLC (AD) 26, that a court may use its inherent power to issue a temporary injunction in mandatory form so that no one can present the court "with a fait accompli".[10]

Drafting a temporary injunction Bangladesh petition

A temporary injunction is sought in a suit, not on its own, and the plaint and application must fit together. Practice is to file both on the same day, as in Sahab Uddin.[10] The final relief claimed, whether declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition or specific performance, fixes what interim protection is available.

What the petition should contain

• Heading and provisions: the suit number and court, and an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code.[1]
• The right claimed: a concise account of title, possession or the contract, with the deed numbers, khatian and plot numbers and dates.
• The threat: what the respondent has done or is about to do, when and where, described specifically enough to support a later violation case.
• The three tests: a separate paragraph for each, linking facts to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
• Urgency: if an ad interim order is sought without notice, the reasons why delay would defeat the object under the proviso to rule 3.[1]
• The schedule: the same property schedule as the plaint, amended whenever the plaint is amended.[9]
• The prayer: the precise acts to be restrained, and in the alternative a status quo order defined by possession and position.

Evidence that carries weight

Rule 1 requires proof "by affidavit or otherwise", so the petition should be verified and supported by documents.[1] In land matters the core bundle is the title deeds, record-of-rights entries, mutation orders and rent receipts. For possession disputes, ask the court early for a local inspection through an Advocate Commissioner; in Sahab Uddin two inspection reports decided the case.[10] For commercial disputes, include the contract, the correspondence showing the threatened breach, and any notices served.

Mistakes that sink applications

The common errors are a schedule that does not match the plaint, a prayer wider than the suit, silence about earlier litigation, delay after the threat arose, and non-attendance; in Salahuddin one application was rejected because the plaintiff did not appear on the hearing date.[9] The sequence we follow is set out below.

Swipe or scroll →

Sending a formal demand before suit can strengthen the urgency and conduct arguments. Our note on legal notices in Bangladesh covers what to include.

Land disputes: possession, partition and mutation

Most applications for a temporary injunction Bangladesh courts decide concern land. Three settings recur, and each has its own rules.

Suits to protect possession

A plaintiff in possession who fears dispossession asks the court to restrain the defendant from entering, building or disturbing possession. Proof of possession is central. The Fazle Morhal plaintiffs succeeded at first instance and on appeal on the strength of mutation and rent receipts; the defendants' complaint that no local inspection had been held did not persuade the High Court Division to interfere with concurrent findings.[8] Our land dispute litigation guide sets out the suits in which these applications are made.

Partition suits and co-sharers

Injunctions between co-sharers are exceptional. In Salahuddin the High Court Division stated the general rule that in a partition suit among co-sharers "injunction is not the option" and should be allowed only in a very rare case. Following Ali Ahmed v Rezia Begum, 1986 BLD 326, and the Appellate Division's approval in Mofazzal Hossain, 3 BLC (AD) 78, it held that a co-sharer in possession of urban land may build at his own risk, and that if the built area later falls in another co-sharer's share, it can be handed over after demolition.[9]

The limit is that no change diminishing the value of the land or prejudicing other co-sharers should be allowed.[9] A co-sharer seeking an injunction must therefore show a specific threat to value or to its own share, not simply that construction is under way. Our analysis of the partition suit framework covers the underlying procedure.

Mutation and land acquisition compensation

Mutation records possession, not title. In Akteruzzaman the plaintiff had sued for declaration of title and challenged two sale deeds; the land had been acquired by the Government, and the defendant had started a mutation case. The court upheld an injunction staying the mutation proceeding because the person recorded would be able to claim the compensation before title was decided, and observed that a record of rights prepared by an executive authority is evidence of possession and cannot confer title.[13] The court also directed disposal of the suit within six months. TRW's land records and mutation practice handles these parallel proceedings.

Commercial disputes and the Commercial Courts Act 2026

In business disputes a temporary injunction Bangladesh courts grant may stop termination of a commercial lease, a sale of business assets, a dealing in shares or dissipation of a debtor's property. Rule 1(b) of Order XXXIX directly covers a defendant who threatens to remove or dispose of property to defraud creditors, and rule 5 provides that an injunction directed to a corporation binds its members and officers whose personal action it seeks to restrain.[1]

The new forum

The Commercial Courts Act 2026, Act No. 23 of 2026, is dated 10 April 2026, is deemed to have taken effect on 1 January 2026, and repealed the Commercial Court Ordinance 2026 while saving everything done under it.[7] Commercial Courts are staffed by District Judges or Additional District Judges, and the Chief Justice is to constitute one or more Commercial Appeal Benches in the High Court Division to hear appeals and revisions.[7]

Section 2 lists twenty-four categories of "commercial dispute", including transactions of merchants, bankers and financial institutions, construction and infrastructure contracts, agreements on immovable property used for trade or business, joint venture and shareholder agreements, intellectual property and arbitration matters, but excluding matters within the High Court Division's original jurisdiction and the Artha Rin Adalat.[7] A business-premises lease dispute such as Iqbal Mahmud must now be tested against that list.[14]

Procedure stays with the Code, with three changes

Section 9(1) applies the Code of Civil Procedure unless the Act provides otherwise, so Order XXXIX and its tests apply in a Commercial Court.[7] Three provisions alter the practice. First, section 7(1) requires pre-suit mediation, where rules for it exist, only where the suit does not involve urgent interim relief; an applicant that needs an injunction should say so expressly in the plaint.[7]

Second, section 6(1) provides that, notwithstanding any existing law, no appeal lies from any order of a Commercial Court other than its final judgment, though revision and review may be filed following the principles and provisions of the Code. Section 6(2) allows an aggrieved party to file an appeal or, as the case may be, a revision in the High Court Division within sixty days of the judgment or order.[7] On that text, the Order XLIII appeal against an injunction order is not available in a Commercial Court, and the challenge is a revision within sixty days.

Third, section 9(10) lets the court give priority to suits involving development projects, infrastructure projects or investments of significant importance.[7] Section 16 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws in commercial disputes.

Pending suits and injunction challenges

Section 8(1) transfers pending commercial suits from ordinary civil courts to the Commercial Court. Its proviso matters to anyone with a live injunction challenge: if an appeal or revision against an interlocutory order is pending in a higher court, the main proceeding is transferred only after that appeal or revision is disposed of.[7] Parties should check where the suit will be heard before choosing between pressing and withdrawing an interlocutory appeal. Related questions on guarantees are covered in our analysis of whether a performance guarantee can be stopped, and TRW's shareholder disputes practice handles injunctions over shares and management.

Challenging a temporary injunction Bangladesh order: appeal and revision

Outside the Commercial Courts, an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction is appealable. Order XLIII rule 1, read with section 104, lists among appealable orders "an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX", and clause (s) covers orders under rules 1 and 4 of Order XL on receivers.[1] The rules of Order XLI apply to these appeals.

The miscellaneous appeal and its time limit

The appeal is filed as a Miscellaneous Appeal. In the cases reviewed here, appeals from Assistant Judges, Senior Assistant Judges and Joint District Judges were filed before the District Judge and often transferred to an Additional District Judge for hearing.[8] [13] The Limitation Act gives thirty days for an appeal under the Code to the court of a District Judge, and ninety days for an appeal under the Code to the High Court Division in other cases, in each case from the date of the order.[6]

Discharge or variation under rule 4

Rule 4 lets the court discharge, vary or set aside any injunction order on the application of a dissatisfied party.[1] Where circumstances change, a rule 4 application to the trial court is quicker than an appeal, and the order on it is itself appealable.

Civil revision to the High Court Division

Section 115(1) allows the High Court Division to revise an order where no appeal lies and the lower court has committed an error of law resulting in an erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice. Section 115(2) gives the District Judge a similar revisional power over orders of subordinate civil courts, and section 115(4) requires leave for a High Court Division revision against an order of the District Judge made under that power.[4] In injunction cases, the usual path is a revision under section 115(1) against the District Judge's appellate order.

Revision is narrow. Concurrent findings on an injunction are "essentially factual" and will not be disturbed unless perverse, based on misreading of evidence or made without considering material evidence.[8] [14] Yet the High Court Division often stays the order or directs status quo when issuing the Rule, as in Fazle Morhal, so revision can change the interim position even when it ultimately fails.[8]

How long the fight can last

In Fazle Morhal the injunction was granted in October 2012, the appeal decided in November 2020 and the revision in October 2025.[8] In Salahuddin the suit was filed in 2008 and in November 2025 the trial court was still fixing a date to examine the plaintiff.[9] Whoever wins the interim round should press for an early trial and a time-bound direction.

Violation of a temporary injunction: consequences

Rule 2(3) of Order XXXIX provides that, in case of disobedience or breach of the terms of an injunction, the court that granted it may order the property of the person guilty to be attached, and may order that person to be detained in civil prison for up to six months unless the court directs his release earlier. Under rule 2(4), no attachment may remain in force for more than one year; if the breach continues, the attached property may be sold and the court may award compensation from the proceeds.[1]

A quasi-criminal proceeding

Violation is pursued by a separate miscellaneous case, and the standard is high. In Md Mobarak Hamidi v Md Nurul Huda, decided on 11 March 2024, a District Judge had sentenced a defendant to one month's civil prison for registering a marriage in breach of an injunction. The High Court Division set the conviction aside.[11]

The court held that a proceeding under rule 2(3) is "if not fully criminal, then certainly it is quasi criminal in nature"; the alleged violator must face exact, definite and precise allegations, is presumed innocent until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden is always on the applicant. The application did not give a specific date and time of violation and the issues were defectively framed.[11] An applicant should record each breach with dates, photographs and, where possible, an Advocate Commissioner's report.

Violation case, not contempt petition

In Muhammad Ismail v Habibuddin Minto, decided on 25 May 2025, a party alleged that a status quo order passed by the High Court Division itself had been breached and filed a contempt petition under article 108 of the Constitution. The High Court Division discharged the contempt rule as not maintainable, holding that rule 2(3) explains how violation of an interim order is adjudicated, that the long practice is a violation miscellaneous case before the court that passed the order, and that such a case requires evidence, which a contempt proceeding cannot take.[12]

The court added that persons who were not parties to the injunction application could not be made contemnors for violating it.[12] Applicants should therefore join every person whose conduct needs to be restrained, such as a developer or purchaser, and rely on rule 5 where the target is a company's officers.[1]

A party that breaches a temporary injunction Bangladesh courts have granted also damages its own case. In Sahab Uddin the court called building in breach of a status quo order a "despicable attempt" against the smooth functioning of the judiciary and ordered the position restored.[10]

Compensation when an injunction was wrongly obtained

The Code provides two routes for a defendant harmed by an unjustified injunction. Section 95 allows the defendant to apply for compensation where a temporary injunction under section 94 was applied for on insufficient grounds, or where the suit fails and there was no reasonable or probable ground for bringing it. The court may award reasonable compensation up to ten thousand Taka, a figure raised from one thousand Taka in 2003, and the order bars a separate suit for compensation for the same injunction.[3]

Rule 5A(4) of Order XXXIX adds that, if the suit is ultimately decided against the party that obtained an ad interim or temporary injunction and the other party suffered loss because of it, the court shall, while deciding the suit, award compensatory costs of up to ten thousand Taka in addition to ordinary costs. Under rule 5A(5) that award does not prevent a claim for further compensation, but it is taken into account if one is made.[1] The sums are modest, which is why respondents should also ask for security or an undertaking under rule 2(2) when an injunction is granted.

Temporary injunction Bangladesh strategy for 2026

For applicants, an order that survives appeal rests on a plaint stating a real right, a petition precise about the property and the threat, and evidence ready for a hearing within days. Ask for a defined status quo order in the alternative, join everyone who must be bound, and be ready to argue within seven days of the respondent's appearance.[1] For respondents, the strongest early points are lack of notice, a defective schedule, delay, earlier litigation and the section 56 bars. Insist on the rule 5A(3) hearing, and file the appeal in time or, in a Commercial Court, the revision within sixty days.[6] [7]

Two questions will shape practice over the coming year: how the Commercial Appeal Benches approach revisions now that section 6 has removed the interlocutory appeal, and whether courts keep preferring defined status quo orders where possession is disputed, as in Fazle Morhal and Salahuddin.[7] [8] [9]

TRW acts for plaintiffs and defendants in injunction applications, miscellaneous appeals, revisions and violation cases across land and commercial disputes. Our real estate disputes practice handles title, possession and partition matters, and our analysis of breach of contract claims covers the commercial side. You can also contact TRW directly when an urgent order is needed.

Frequently asked questions

What is a temporary injunction in Bangladesh?

It is an order that continues until a specified time or until the court's further order, granted at any stage of a suit and regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is distinct from a perpetual injunction, which is granted only by the final decree.[5]

Under which provisions is the application made?

Under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, usually read with section 151. Section 94(c) of the Code is the underlying power.[1] [2]

What must the applicant prove?

A prima facie case, a balance of convenience in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable loss if the injunction is refused.[8]

Can an injunction be granted without notice to the other side?

Yes, if the delay would defeat the purpose, except where a bank is selling pledged goods for a default. Between private parties, the court must then decide the matter on merit within seven days of the opposite party's appearance.[1]

Can I get an ex parte injunction against the Government?

Not where the order is likely to affect a development programme or work or otherwise harm the public interest. Rule 5A(1) requires notice to the Government Pleader and a hearing first.[1]

What is a status quo order?

An order directing both parties to keep the possession and position of the property unchanged until further order or disposal of the suit. It must identify the property it covers.[8] [9]

How do I appeal against an injunction order?

By a miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(r). The Limitation Act allows thirty days for an appeal to the District Judge and ninety days for an appeal to the High Court Division.[1] [6]

Is the route different in a Commercial Court?

Yes. Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act 2026 bars appeals from orders other than the final judgment and allows revision to the High Court Division within sixty days.[7]

What happens if the other side disobeys the injunction?

The court may attach their property and detain them in civil prison for up to six months. The applicant must prove the breach beyond reasonable doubt in a violation case.[1] [11]

Can a co-sharer be restrained from building in a partition suit?

Only rarely. The High Court Division has held that a co-sharer in possession of urban land may build at his own risk, provided the construction does not reduce the land's value or prejudice other co-sharers.[9]