Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC: Temporary Injunction, Ex Parte Relief, Rule 4 Vacation, Appeal & 2026 Supreme Court Law

By Adv. Govind Bali

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide the principal statutory framework for temporary injunctions in ordinary civil suits. A temporary injunction is an interlocutory protective order intended to preserve rights, property or the subject matter of litigation until the court can finally decide the dispute.

The remedy is powerful because it can immediately restrain alienation of property, dispossession, interference, breach of contract, use of disputed rights or continuation of an injury. For the same reason, courts treat it as a discretionary and equitable remedy. The applicant is ordinarily required to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. These three requirements operate together; a strong case on one does not automatically cure total failure on another.

The Supreme Court’s latest major pronouncement, Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh, 2026 INSC 843, decided on 12 August 2026, reinforces two particularly important rules: an injunction court should not conduct a mini-trial on disputed merits, and an appellate court hearing an Order XLIII Rule 1(r) appeal should not simply substitute its own discretion for a reasonably exercised discretion of the court below.

Quick Answer: When Can a Temporary Injunction Be Granted?

A temporary injunction may be granted where the CPC conditions are attracted and the applicant demonstrates that immediate judicial protection is necessary pending trial. In most cases, the court asks:

Prima facie case: Is there a serious, bona fide and triable dispute requiring investigation?
Balance of convenience: Which side will suffer greater comparative prejudice from grant or refusal of protection?
Irreparable injury: Is the threatened harm of a kind that cannot be adequately repaired through ordinary damages or later relief?

The court must then tailor the order to preserve the litigation without effectively deciding the suit at the interlocutory stage.

What Is a Temporary Injunction?

A temporary injunction is an interim court order operating for a limited period, usually until disposal of the injunction application, until further orders, or until disposal of the suit. It differs from a permanent injunction, which is part of the final relief granted after adjudication.

The statutory foundation lies principally in Section 94 CPC read with Order XXXIX. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 also distinguishes temporary and perpetual injunctions, but the procedural machinery for temporary civil injunctions is ordinarily found in the CPC.

Order XXXIX Rule 1: When Property or Possession Requires Protection

Rule 1 permits temporary protection in specified circumstances where, by affidavit or otherwise, it is shown that:

property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by a party, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree;
the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of property with a view to defrauding creditors; or
the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to property in dispute.

Property disputes therefore form a large part of Order XXXIX litigation: sale deeds, partition, possession, inheritance, landlord-tenant disputes, development agreements, company-held assets and family property.

Order XXXIX Rule 2: Breach of Contract or Continuing Injury

Rule 2 deals more broadly with threatened or continuing breach of contract or other injury. A plaintiff may seek restraint against repetition or continuation of the breach or injury, whether compensation is also claimed or not.

This provision commonly appears in contractual, commercial, intellectual-property, employment-related restraint, society, partnership and business disputes, though substantive enforceability must always be tested under the governing law.

The Three Conditions: Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury

1. Prima Facie Case

A prima facie case does not mean that the plaintiff has already proved the suit. The question is whether there is a serious and substantial dispute requiring adjudication and whether the applicant’s asserted right is sufficiently credible to justify interim protection.

The court should avoid finally deciding title, fraud, authenticity, contractual interpretation or credibility where those issues properly require evidence.

2. Balance of Convenience

The court compares the practical consequences of granting and refusing the injunction. Relevant factors can include:

whether the status quo can be preserved;
whether third-party rights may be created;
whether construction, demolition or transfer will make final relief difficult;
whether the defendant’s lawful use of property or business will be disproportionately restricted;
whether monetary security can protect either side; and
whether the applicant delayed approaching the court.

3. Irreparable Injury

Irreparable injury does not necessarily mean physically irreversible harm. The expression concerns injury for which damages would not provide an adequate, practical or complete remedy.

Alienation of unique property, loss of control over family shareholding, destruction of evidence, irreversible construction, dispossession or violation of a continuing proprietary right can potentially satisfy the test depending on facts.

2026 Supreme Court: Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh

In Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh, 2026 INSC 843, decided on 12 August 2026, the Supreme Court considered an injunction granted by a Delhi High Court Single Judge in a family dispute involving wills, shareholding, family companies, LLP interests and alienation of properties.

The Single Judge had found, prima facie, that serious disputes existed and that preservation of the assets was necessary. A Division Bench reversed that order after closely analysing the disputed merits. The Supreme Court restored the injunction.

The judgment is now an important 2026 authority for temporary injunction practice because it reiterates that:

a prima facie case means a serious and substantial question requiring investigation, not final proof;
balance of convenience may favour preservation of the subject matter until trial;
irreparable injury is assessed in the context of the right and subject matter threatened;
interlocutory orders should not become detailed mini-trials on affidavits and documents;
an appellate court should not substitute its own discretion merely because it would have reached a different view; and
interference is ordinarily justified where the discretion below is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled injunction principles.

The Supreme Court expressly disapproved the increasing practice of lengthy injunction orders that effectively predict who will win at trial. The interlocutory court should record reasoned findings on the three settled conditions without deciding the final merits.

Wander Ltd. Principle: Limits on Appellate Interference

The classic rule from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. continues to govern appeals against discretionary injunction orders. The appellate court does not rehear the application as though exercising first-instance discretion.

Interference is generally warranted where the lower court:

acted arbitrarily or capriciously;
ignored settled legal principles;
relied on irrelevant considerations;
failed to consider material considerations;
reached a plainly perverse conclusion; or
exceeded jurisdiction.

Shruti Manav Sharma is the latest emphatic reaffirmation of this rule.

Temporary Injunction Is Not a Final Adjudication

Findings at the injunction stage are ordinarily tentative. They should not bind the trial court when final evidence is led. A careful injunction order therefore uses expressions such as “prima facie,” “at this stage” and “subject to evidence” rather than making categorical findings on disputed title or fraud.

Similarly, parties should avoid treating refusal of interim relief as equivalent to dismissal of the suit. A plaintiff may fail to establish urgency or irreparable harm while still possessing a triable cause of action.

Can the Court Grant the Final Relief at the Interim Stage?

As a general rule, interlocutory relief should preserve the dispute rather than grant the entire final relief before trial. Courts are therefore cautious where the interim prayer substantially duplicates the final prayer.

Exceptional situations can justify strong interim mandatory relief, but the threshold is higher. The court ordinarily requires a particularly clear case, serious necessity and a need to restore or preserve the last uncontested position rather than create a new final arrangement.

Ex Parte Injunction Under Order XXXIX Rule 3

The normal rule is notice before injunction. Order XXXIX Rule 3 requires the court to direct notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction unless delay would defeat the object of granting relief.

Therefore, an ex parte injunction is an exception, not the default.

Where the court proposes to grant relief without notice, it must record reasons explaining why delay would defeat the object of the injunction.

What Must the Plaintiff Do After Obtaining an Ex Parte Injunction?

The proviso to Rule 3 requires immediate procedural compliance. The applicant must deliver or send to the opposite party copies of:

the injunction application;
the supporting affidavit;
the plaint; and
documents relied upon by the applicant.

The applicant must also file an affidavit of compliance on the day of grant or the day immediately following, as contemplated by the Rule.

Failure to comply with Rule 3 can seriously weaken continuation of ex parte protection, particularly where the omission causes prejudice or accompanies suppression of material facts.

When Should an Ex Parte Injunction Be Granted?

Classic considerations include:

whether advance notice would enable immediate alienation or destruction of the subject matter;
whether the threatened act is imminent;
whether the applicant approached promptly after learning of the threat;
whether the applicant made full and candid disclosure;
whether the proposed restraint is narrowly tailored; and
whether the applicant can compensate the opposite party if the injunction is later found unjustified.

An applicant seeking relief without hearing the other side carries a heightened duty of candour.

Suppression of Material Facts and Ex Parte Relief

Equitable relief can be vacated where the plaintiff suppresses or distorts material facts. This is especially serious in an ex parte application because the court has no defendant present to correct the record.

Order XXXIX Rule 4 specifically addresses false or misleading statements in an injunction application or supporting affidavit where the injunction was granted without notice. If the court finds that a party knowingly made a false or misleading statement regarding a material particular, the injunction is ordinarily to be vacated unless the court records reasons why the interests of justice require otherwise.

Order XXXIX Rule 3A: The 30-Day Endeavour

Where an injunction is granted without notice, Rule 3A requires the court to make an endeavour to finally dispose of the injunction application within thirty days from the date of grant. If the court is unable to do so, it must record reasons for the inability.

The language is important. The Rule imposes a statutory duty to endeavour to decide quickly and to record reasons for delay; it does not automatically make every ex parte injunction void on the thirty-first day.

For litigants, the practical lesson is to press for early hearing rather than allow ex parte protection to continue indefinitely without final consideration of the application.

Order XXXIX Rule 4: How to Vacate, Vary or Modify an Injunction

Any party dissatisfied with an injunction may apply to the same court under Rule 4 to discharge, vary or set aside the order.

The grounds depend substantially on whether the injunction was ex parte or passed after hearing.

Ex Parte Injunction Obtained by False or Misleading Statement

Where a material false or misleading statement was knowingly made in the injunction application or supporting affidavit and the order was granted without notice, the first proviso to Rule 4 creates a strong statutory basis for vacation.

Injunction Passed After Hearing Both Sides

Where an injunction was passed after giving a party an opportunity of being heard, the second proviso restricts repeated attempts to reopen the same order. The dissatisfied party ordinarily must demonstrate:

a change in circumstances necessitating variation or vacation; or
undue hardship caused by the continuing injunction.

Rule 4 is therefore not intended to become a disguised review application merely repeating arguments already rejected.

What Is a “Change in Circumstances” Under Rule 4?

A qualifying change should ordinarily be a subsequent development materially affecting the basis on which the injunction was granted. Examples can include:

subsequent transfer or statutory order;
new judicial determination affecting the legal relationship;
material alteration in possession;
expiry or termination of the underlying arrangement;
subsequent compliance curing the threatened injury; or
another post-order event undermining the factual basis of the restraint.

A fact that existed before the injunction but was simply not argued is not ordinarily a genuine subsequent change.

Can a Party File an Appeal Instead of a Rule 4 Application?

Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC provides an appeal against specified orders under Order XXXIX, including orders under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10.

An aggrieved party should therefore assess whether the appropriate course is:

an application before the same court under Rule 4;
an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r); or
in a narrow procedural situation, supervisory jurisdiction where no ordinary appeal is provided and the legal threshold is met.

The choice should be based on the nature of the order rather than a tactical preference for a higher forum.

Order Merely Issuing Notice: Is It Appealable?

A developing line of 2025–26 High Court authority distinguishes between an actual grant or refusal of injunction and a procedural order that merely issues notice under Rule 3 without deciding the prayer.

For example, the Karnataka High Court in 2026 held that a mere notice order under Rule 3 is not an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), because Rule 3 is conspicuously absent from the list of appealable provisions. The Delhi High Court has similarly distinguished simple issuance of notice from grant or refusal of substantive injunction relief.

The exact order must be read carefully: if the court has expressly or impliedly decided substantive interim relief, the appellate analysis may differ.

Appeal Under Order XLIII Rule 1(r): What Should the Appellant Show?

After Shruti Manav Sharma, an appellant should do more than argue that another interpretation of the documents is possible. A focused injunction appeal should identify a defect in the exercise of discretion, such as:

failure to apply one of the three mandatory tests;
a material factual finding unsupported by the record;
misapplication of a statutory provision;
grant of relief beyond the suit or pleadings;
failure to consider a decisive admitted document;
suppression of material facts;
absence of jurisdiction; or
an order that is arbitrary, capricious or perverse.

A merits-heavy appeal inviting the appellate court to retry the entire suit on documents risks falling foul of the Supreme Court’s 2026 warning.

Status Quo Orders: Why Precision Matters

Courts frequently direct parties to “maintain status quo.” Such an order can create uncertainty unless it identifies status quo as to what.

A well-drafted order should, where possible, specify whether status quo concerns:

possession;
title;
construction;
alienation;
shareholding;
management;
nature and character of property; or
creation of third-party interests.

Parties seeking or opposing a status quo order should ask the court to define the protected state precisely to avoid later contempt or enforcement disputes.

Temporary Injunction in Property Disputes

In a property suit, the court ordinarily examines the documentary chain, admitted possession, revenue records, registered documents, site plans, conduct and immediacy of threatened alienation or dispossession.

At the interlocutory stage, however, the court should avoid conclusively declaring title unless the legal position is undisputed. Revenue records, police material and other contemporaneous documents may sometimes assist a prima facie assessment even though their final evidentiary value must be decided at trial.

Can Revenue Records or Police Documents Be Considered?

At the injunction stage, the court is conducting a tentative assessment rather than final proof. Recent 2026 High Court authority has recognised that revenue entries and material arising from parallel criminal proceedings may be considered for their limited corroborative or persuasive value in assessing possession or immediate threat.

Their admissibility, evidentiary weight and binding effect at final trial remain separate questions.

Temporary Injunction in Contractual Disputes

In contract cases, the court must distinguish between:

a legally enforceable negative covenant or proprietary restriction;
a purely monetary claim;
a contract that is itself determinable;
a personal-service relationship ordinarily unsuitable for specific enforcement; and
a contractual right whose breach would cause injury not adequately compensable in damages.

The Specific Relief Act and substantive contract law may therefore determine whether a requested injunction is legally permissible even if the three equitable tests otherwise appear satisfied.

Temporary Injunction in Commercial Suits

Commercial courts apply the same core injunction principles but often against a more document-intensive and time-sensitive background. The applicant should be prepared with:

the contract and amendments;
correspondence;
termination notices;
accounting or transaction records;
proof of urgency;
damages analysis; and
a narrowly framed proposed order.

Overbroad restraints can damage legitimate commerce and may fail the balance-of-convenience test.

Mandatory Interim Injunction vs Prohibitory Injunction

A prohibitory injunction restrains a party from doing an act. A mandatory injunction directs positive action, such as restoration of possession, removal of an obstruction or reversal of a recent change.

Interim mandatory injunctions are granted more cautiously because they may alter rather than preserve the existing position. The applicant ordinarily requires a particularly strong prima facie case and circumstances showing that immediate restoration is necessary to prevent serious injustice.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A: Consequences of Disobeying an Injunction

Disobedience of an injunction can attract Order XXXIX Rule 2A. The court may order attachment of property and may also order detention in civil prison for the statutorily permitted period.

The jurisdiction is coercive and quasi-punitive in effect, so the alleged injunction must be clear and the breach must be established with appropriate precision. Ambiguous status quo directions frequently create avoidable disputes.

Where attachment continues and disobedience persists, the CPC also permits further consequences concerning the attached property in accordance with Rule 2A.

Can Injunction Be Granted Against a Non-Party?

Ordinarily, coercive relief should operate against parties properly before the court or persons legally bound through them. Where effective relief requires restraint against a person or entity not impleaded, the plaintiff should consider whether that person is a necessary or proper party under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

An injunction application should not become a device for imposing substantive obligations on strangers without procedural opportunity.

Can the Court Use Section 151 CPC to Grant Injunction?

Section 151 preserves inherent powers necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. Courts have recognised that inherent interim powers may operate in situations not squarely covered by Order XXXIX, but Section 151 cannot be used to defeat an express statutory prohibition or bypass the structure of the CPC.

Where Order XXXIX directly governs the requested relief, the application should ordinarily be anchored in the specific provision rather than invoking Section 151 as a substitute.

Undertaking as to Damages

In appropriate commercial or property matters, courts may require an undertaking, security or other protective term to balance the risk that an injunction later proves unjustified.

In Shruti Manav Sharma, the Supreme Court restored the injunction while continuing the appellants’ undertaking as to damages. This illustrates that interim protection can be calibrated rather than treated as an all-or-nothing remedy.

Delay, Acquiescence and Conduct

An injunction is equitable relief, so conduct matters. A party who waits for months while the defendant openly acts and then seeks urgent ex parte restraint may face difficulty establishing immediacy or irreparable harm.

Delay is not always fatal—especially where injury is continuing or unlawful—but it must be explained. The court may also examine:

suppression;
prior consent;
acquiescence;
previous proceedings;
undertakings already given; and
whether the applicant has complied with its own contractual or statutory obligations.

How to Draft an Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Application

A strong application should ordinarily contain:

Existing legal right: identify the property, contract, possession or other enforceable interest.
Threat: state the precise threatened act and its date.
Prima facie case: identify the material documents creating the triable right.
Balance of convenience: compare prejudice on both sides.
Irreparable injury: explain why damages or later relief are inadequate.
Urgency: identify why ordinary notice is or is not sufficient.
Full disclosure: disclose previous litigation, adverse documents and material correspondence.
Narrow relief: ask only for the restraint genuinely necessary.
Duration: specify whether ad interim relief is sought until hearing, disposal of the application or suit.
Supporting affidavit and documents: provide a clean evidentiary record.

How to Oppose a Temporary Injunction

The defendant should separately attack each of the three tests rather than merely deny the suit.

No prima facie case: plaintiff lacks a legally enforceable right or the claim is facially barred.
Balance against injunction: restraint would cause disproportionate loss or disrupt lawful possession/business.
No irreparable injury: damages provide an adequate remedy.
Delay: alleged urgency is contradicted by plaintiff’s conduct.
Suppression: material proceedings or documents were withheld.
Final relief: interim prayer effectively grants the suit.
Jurisdiction: court lacks territorial, pecuniary or subject-matter competence.
Alternative protection: security, undertaking or restricted order can adequately protect the plaintiff.

Documents Commonly Required in an Injunction Matter

Type of dispute	Useful documents
Property possession	sale deed, conveyance, possession documents, site plan, photographs, revenue records, utility records
Partition/inheritance	title chain, wills, family settlement, mutation, death certificates, possession records
Contract	agreement, amendments, notices, emails, invoices, termination record
Company/shareholding	share records, agreements, statutory filings, board documents, transfer instruments
Construction	sanction plans, photographs, municipal records, engineer reports
Commercial restraint	contract, confidentiality record, transaction evidence, loss analysis

Common Mistakes in Injunction Applications

Using broad allegations without identifying the threatened act.
Failing to plead all three injunction tests separately.
Seeking ex parte relief without explaining why notice would defeat the object.
Suppressing previous suits or adverse orders.
Seeking a vague “status quo” order without identifying possession, title or alienation.
Asking for final relief in interlocutory form.
Failing to comply immediately with Rule 3 after obtaining ex parte relief.
Ignoring limitation or delay.
Relying on disputed title as though already finally established.
Not offering a narrower protective order where a broad injunction is disproportionate.

Common Mistakes in Rule 4 Vacation Applications

Repeating the same merits arguments after a contested injunction order.
Calling an old fact a “change in circumstances.”
Failing to identify the precise false or misleading statement used to obtain ex parte relief.
Not showing how the alleged statement was material to the injunction.
Claiming “undue hardship” without documents showing actual prejudice.
Using Rule 4 as a substitute for an appeal where the complaint is really appellate in nature.

Temporary Injunction vs Order VII Rule 11

The two applications serve very different purposes. Order XXXIX preserves rights pending trial. Order VII Rule 11 tests whether the plaint itself suffers from a threshold statutory defect requiring rejection.

A defendant may sometimes pursue both, but the legal tests should not be conflated. For the threshold framework, see our guide on Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Rejection of Plaint.

Temporary Injunction and Amendment of Pleadings

An injunction application must ordinarily operate within the case actually pleaded. If subsequent events or omitted material facts change the basis of interim relief, amendment may become necessary.

See our current guide on Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Amendment of Pleadings.

2026 Temporary Injunction Case Matrix

Case	Issue	Key principle
Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh, 2026 INSC 843	Three injunction tests; appellate interference	No mini-trial; appellate court should not substitute discretion absent arbitrariness, perversity or disregard of settled principles.
Krishna Lal @ Kishan Lal v. Diksha Setia, Rajasthan HC, 28 Jan 2026	Material considered at injunction stage	Revenue and parallel-proceeding material may be considered for a tentative prima facie assessment without deciding final evidentiary rights.
Asian Hotels North Ltd. v. Exclusive Capital Ltd., Delhi HC, 27 Feb 2026	Appeal against ad interim injunction	An actual ad interim order under Order XXXIX can attract the statutory appeal framework.
Suresh Babu J.N. v. Jagan Mohan, Karnataka HC, 30 Jun 2026	Order merely issuing notice	Rule 3 notice order, without grant or refusal of substantive relief, is not ordinarily appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the three requirements for temporary injunction?

Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Courts ordinarily examine all three together.

Can an injunction be granted without notice?

Yes, but ex parte relief is exceptional. The court must record why delay would defeat the object of the injunction, and the applicant must comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3.

Does an ex parte injunction automatically expire after 30 days?

No. Rule 3A requires the court to endeavour to finally dispose of the injunction application within thirty days and record reasons if unable to do so. The text does not create automatic expiry merely because thirty days pass.

How can an ex parte injunction be vacated?

A dissatisfied party may apply under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and, where legally maintainable, may also consider an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r). Suppression or knowingly false material statements are particularly important grounds.

Can a contested injunction be repeatedly reconsidered under Rule 4?

Not ordinarily. After hearing, the second proviso to Rule 4 generally requires a change in circumstances or undue hardship.

Can a temporary injunction decide ownership?

No. The injunction court may form a tentative prima facie view, but final title ordinarily requires trial unless the legal position is admitted or otherwise conclusively determined.

Can an appellate court reassess all documents afresh?

The 2026 Supreme Court in Shruti Manav Sharma strongly cautioned against this. Appellate review of a discretionary injunction order is limited by the Wander principle.

Is an order merely issuing notice appealable?

Recent High Court authority distinguishes mere notice under Rule 3 from substantive grant or refusal under Rules 1 and 2. A pure notice order is generally not treated as appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

What happens if an injunction is violated?

Order XXXIX Rule 2A provides coercive consequences, including attachment and civil imprisonment in accordance with the Rule. The injunction must be clear and the breach proved.

Can the court require security or an undertaking?

Yes. Interim orders may be made subject to conditions designed to protect the opposite party if the injunction later proves unjustified.

Primary and Current Authorities

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 94, Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 3, 3A and 4, and Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727.
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719.
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225.
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695.
Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 634.
Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh, 2026 INSC 843.

Key Takeaways

Temporary injunction is a protective, not final, remedy.
Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury remain the controlling three-part test.
Ex parte injunction is exceptional and requires recorded reasons plus immediate Rule 3 compliance.
Rule 3A requires an endeavour to decide the injunction application within thirty days after ex parte relief.
Rule 4 permits vacation or variation, but contested orders cannot ordinarily be repeatedly reopened without changed circumstances or undue hardship.
Suppression and knowingly misleading statements can justify vacation of ex parte relief.
Order XLIII Rule 1(r) provides the principal appeal route for specified injunction orders.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Shruti Manav Sharma strongly rejects mini-trials at the interlocutory stage and excessive appellate re-appreciation.

Disclaimer

This article is for general legal education and procedural-law awareness only. It is not case-specific legal advice, advertisement or solicitation. Temporary injunctions are intensely fact-sensitive and depend on the pleadings, documents, urgency, substantive law, jurisdiction, conduct of parties and exact form of relief sought.

Fastrack Legal Solutions