SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020

Page 52 Sunday, December 06, 2020

Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
12. Agricultural produce not attachable before judgment.—Nothing in this
Order shall be deemed to authorise the plaintiff to apply for the attachment of any
agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist, or to empower the Court to
order the attachment or production of such produce.
397 [13. Small Cause Court not to attach immovable property.—Nothing in this

Order shall be deemed to empower any Court of Small Causes to make an order for the
attachment of immovable property.]
High Court Amendments
KERALA, LACCADIVE, MINICOY AND AMINDIVI I SLANDS.—For “Court of Small Cause”
substitute “Court exercising Small Cause Jurisdiction”. (9-6-1959)
ORDER XXXIX
TEMPORARY I NJUNCTIONS & INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
► Interim or interlocutory order.—Compliance with an effective and substantial order is
essential, violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction
ought to be viewed strictly if the rule of law is to be maintained. No litigant can be permitted to defy
or decline adherence to an interim or an interlocutory order of a court merely because he or she is
of the opinion that that order is incorrect. That has to be judged by a superior court or by another
court having jurisdiction to do so. If as a general principle, the violation of an interim or an
interlocutory order is not viewed seriously, it will have widespread deleterious effects on the
authority of courts to implement their interim or interlocutory orders or compel their adherence,
Surya Vadanan v. State of T.N., (2015) 5 SCC 450.
Temporary injunctions
1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.—Where in any suit it
is proved by affidavit or otherwise—
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged
or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a
decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property
with a view to 398 [defrauding] his creditors,
399
[(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause
injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,]
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make
such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging,
alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property 400 [or dispossession of the
plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in
dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further
orders.
High Court Amendments
ALLAHABAD.—In clause (a) the words “or wrongfully sold. . . . . . . . . . . . alienation”
are now restored which were deleted by former amendment.
ANDHRA PRADESH.—Substitute the following for Rule 1:
“1. Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged
or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a
decree; or
(b) that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property
with a view to defraud his creditors; or
(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause
injury or loss to the plaintiff,
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such
other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging,
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 53 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossessing or otherwise

causing injury or loss as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until
further orders.” (26-7-1956).
ASSAM AND NAGALAND, CALCUTTA, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR I SLANDS.—Add sub-rules (2)
and (3) as follows:
“(2) In case of disobedience or of breach of the terms of such temporary injunction
or order, the Court granting the injunction or making such order may order the
property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and
may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not
exceeding six months unless in the meantime the Court direct his release.
(3) The property attached under sub-rule (2) may, when the Court considers it fit
so to direct, be sold, and out of the proceeds the Court may award such
compensation to the injured party as it finds proper and shall pay the balance, if
any, to the party entitled thereto.”
CALCUTTA (ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR I SLANDS) AND GAUHATI (ASSAM), MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR
AND TRIPURA:
Renumber Rule 1 as Rule 1(1) and add the following as sub-rules (2) and (3):
“(2) In case of disobedience, or of breach of the terms of such temporary
injunction or order, the Court granting the injunction or making such order may
order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be
attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a
term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his
release.
(3) The property attached under sub-rule (2) may, when the Court considers it
fit so to direct, be sold and, out of the sale proceeds, the Court may award such
compensation to the injured party as it finds proper and shall pay the balance, if
any, to the party entitled thereto.” (3-2-1933)
KERALA, LACCADIVE, MINICOY AND AMINDIVI I SLANDS.—(i) Rule 1 shall be renumbered as
sub-rule (1) and after the words “wrongfully sold” insert the words “or delivered.”
(ii) After sub-rule (1) insert the following sub-rule (2):
“(2) In case of disobedience of any order passed under sub-rule (1), the Court
granting the injunction may proceed against the person guilty of such disobedience
under sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 2 of this order.” (9-6-1959)
PATNA AND ORISSA.—Substitute the word “the” for the word “as” in line 1 of clause
(a) and add the following proviso after Rule 1:
“Provided that no such temporary injunction shall be granted if it would
contravene the provisions of Section 56, Specific Relief Act (Act 1 of 1877):
Provided further that an injunction to restrain a sale, or confirmation of sale, or to
restrain delivery of possession, shall not be granted except in a case where the
applicant cannot lawfully prefer and could not lawfully have preferred, a claim to the
property, or objection to the sale, or to the attachment preceding it before the Court
executing the decree.” (8-10-1937)
► Nature and Scope.—Passing of final order on issue concerned at interlocutory stage, is
impermissible, Vishnu Babu Tambe v. Apurva Vishnu Tambe, (2017) 2 SCC 454.
► Principles.—While passing an interim order of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2
CPC, the court is required to consider three basic principles, namely, (a) prima facie case, (b)
balance of convenience and inconvenience, and (c) irreparable loss and injury. While granting
injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties, Makers Development
Services (P) Ltd. v. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, (2012) 1 SCC
735 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 379.
► Final relief.—Final relief by interim order is impermissible, BSNL v. Prem Chand Premi,
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 54 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
(2005) 13 SCC 505 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1502.
► Interlocutory application and termination period.—An interlocutory application is not
subject to any period of limitation, unless otherwise specifically provided by law. An interlocutory
application is nothing but an application in the course of an action. It is a request made to a court,
for its interference, in a matter arising in the progress of a proceeding, Harihar Nath v. SBI, (2006)
4 SCC 457.
► Interim or temporary injunction.—Interim orders cease to be operative on passing of final
order, with which they ultimately merge, Jaipur Municipal Corpn. v. C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423.
An interim arrangement is normally made on a prima facie consideration of the matter and an
broad principles without examining the matter in depth. BSES Ltd. v. Tata Power Co. Ltd., (2004) 1
SCC 195.
► Irreparable injury.—Prima facie case in favour of party seeking relief (plaintiff) not enough.
It must be shown prima facie that injury suffered by plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction would
be irreparable, Best Sellers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792 : (2012) 3
SCC (Civ) 1044.
► Recording of reasons.—While granting or rejecting injunction recording of reasons is
mandatory, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha v. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad, (2010) 15 SCC 539 : (2013) 2
SCC (Civ) 116.
► Ex parte interim relief.—In matter of granting ex parte injunction the court shall observe the
following guidelines:
The court should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex parte ad interim injunctions or
stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only
after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed. (2) If in a given case, ex
parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on
merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue
adjournments should be avoided. (3) Litigants who obtained ex parte ad interim injunction on the
strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be
allowed to abuse the process of the court. (4) In case the court has to grant ex parte injunction in
exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is
eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic
costs and mesne profits. (5) If an ex parte injunction order is granted, then in that case an
endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be
possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court, Ramrameshwari Devi v.
Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1.
► Trade Marks and Copyright.—The Supreme Court does not normally entertain appeals
against interlocutory orders. In the case of trade marks, however, keeping in perspective the
endemic delay in concluding cases/suits in India because of the exponentially increasing docket
explosion, temporary ad interim injunctions are of far-reaching consequences, oftentimes effectively
deciding the lis and the disputes themselves. However, it is now well-entrenched in our jurisprudence
that the appellate court should not flimsily, whimsically or lightly interfere in the exercise of discretion
by a subordinate court unless such exercise is palpably perverse. Perversity can pertain to the
understanding of law or the appreciation of pleadings or evidence. The appellate court ought not to
reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court
below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court
would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on
the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial
manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify
interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion, Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical
Technologies Ltd., (2016) 2 SCC 672 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 190.
► Injunction when may not be granted.—Where temporary injunction has been granted
without court satisfying itself as to whether prerequisites therefor were met, it is not permissible,
Jyoti Ltd. v. Bharat J. Patel, (2015) 14 SCC 566.
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 55 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.—(1) In any suit
for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of
any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any
time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply
to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the
breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like
kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration
of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court
thinks fit.
(3) 401 [* * *]
(4) 402 [* * *]
STATE AMENDMENTS
Madhya Pradesh.—In its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh, in Order
XXXIX of the First Schedule to the principal Act,—
(a) in Rule 2, in sub-rule (2), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
“Provided that no such injunction shall be granted—
(a) where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of
Section 38 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963); or
(b) to stay, the operation of an order for transfer, suspension, reduction in rank,
compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of service
of, or taking charge from, any person appointed to public service and post in
connection with the affairs of the State including any employee of any
Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government; or
(c) to stay, any disciplinary proceeding, pending or intended or, the effect of any
adverse entry against any person appointed to public service and post in
connection with the affairs of the State including any employee of the
Company owned or controlled by the State Government; or
(d) to restrain any election; or
(e) to restrain any auction intended to be made or, to restrain the effect of any
auction made by the Government; or to stay the proceedings for the recovery
of any dues recoverable as land revenue unless adequate security is
furnished;
and any order for injunction granted in contravention of these provisions shall be
void.” [Vide M.P. Act 29 of 1984, S. 8 (14-8-1984)].
Uttar Pradesh.—In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Rule 2, in sub-
rule (2), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
“Provided that no such injunction shall be granted—
(a) where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of
Section 38 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963), or
(b) to stay the operation of an order for transfer, suspension, reduction in rank,
compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of service
of, or taking charge from, any employee including any employee of the
Government, or
(c) to stay, any disciplinary proceeding pending or intended or, the effect of any
adverse entry, against any employee of the Government, or
(d) [omitted]403
(e) to restrain any election, or
(f) to restrain, any auction intended to be made or, the effect of any auction
made, by the Government *[unless adequate security is furnished], or
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 56 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
(g) to stay the proceedings for the recovery of any dues recoverable as land
revenue unless adequate security is furnished, or
(h) in any matter where a reference can be made to the Chancellor of a
University under any enactment for the time being in force;
and any order for injunction granted in contravention of these provisions shall be
void.” [Vide U.P. Act 57 of 1976, S. 13 (w.e.f. 1-1-1977)].
*Ins. w.e.f 2-10-1981 (Vide Noti. dt. 3-2-1981).
► Nature and scope.—Order 39, Rule 2 refers to a “suit for restraining the defendant from
committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind” and thus, a simple suit for recovery of
an ascertained amount of money for non-payment of the dues for the construction work already
done, does not come within the purview of such provision, Sunil Kakrania v. Saltee Infrastructure
Ltd., AIR 2009 Cal 260 (263) (DB).
404
[2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.—(1) In the
case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or
Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order
made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which
the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of
such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be
detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the
meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one
year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property
attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such
compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to
the party entitled thereto.]
High Court Amendment
PATNA.—Insert the words and figures “or Section 151” after the word and figure
“Rule 2” and before the words “or breach of any”. (Noti. No. 243/R, dt. 3-8-1979).
► Nature and scope.—An application under Order 39, Rule 2-A CPC lies only where
disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the
court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the
suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order and the
court cannot entertain an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A. An application under Order 39, Rule
2-A is maintainable only during the pendency of the suit in case the interim order passed by the
court or undertaking given by the party is violated, Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi,
(2012) 4 SCC 307 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 423 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 497.
In case where there is sale of property during subsistence of interim orders of court restraining
parties not to sell, encumber or dispose of scheduled property without disclosing/recognising rights
of respondent, it is not open to parties to the lis or to any third party to determine validity of an order
passed by court. Parties who consider an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, must
approach court of competent jurisdiction to have said order set aside on such grounds, as available
in law. Order of court has to be complied with and sale held in violation of said order has to be set
aside, Robust Hotels (P) Ltd. v. EIH Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 622.
► Decree passed without jurisdiction.—Unless the decree is set aside it is binding on the
parties. The plea that the decree was passed by the court having no jurisdiction is no ground to
disobey the injunction, Vijay Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1943 : (2008) 4 All
LJ 117 (All) (DB).
3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party.—The
Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the
injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice
of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party:
405
[Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 57 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its
opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and
require the applicant—
(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post,
immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of
the application for injunction together with—
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
(ii) a copy of the plaint; and
(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day
immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid
have been so delivered or sent.]
► Revision.—Order 39, Rule 3 imposes a duty on the court before granting an injunction to
issue notice to the party. It is a procedural provision, a step in the case. The court, in the event,
arrives at a conclusion that the grant of ex parte injunction would be defeated by delay, can in the
case of urgency proceed to grant an injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 or Order 39, Rule 2. If the
injunction is granted or rejected, it would be appealable under Order 43. Merely issuing a notice on
arriving at a conclusion that there is no urgency would not be an order which is revisable, Ram
Dhani v. Raja Ram, AIR 2011 All 121 (131) (DB).
406 [3-A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days.—

Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the
Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days
from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it
shall record its reasons for such inability.]
High Court Amendment
ALLAHABAD.—Rule 3-A shall be omitted (Vide Noti. No. 103/IV-h—360 dt. Feb. 3,
1981, w.e.f. Oct. 3, 1981.)
ANDHRA PRADESH.—As quoted in A.P.H.C. judgment. Gram Panchayat v. G. Narendra
Prasad, (2007) 2 Andh LD 75. These Rules read as under:
“3-A. In any case where a temporary injunction is granted, the Court may, at the
time of the order, or at any time during the pendency of the injunction, call upon
the applicant to furnish security for the amount of damages that the Court may
determine as payable by the party obtaining the injunction to the other party as
compensation for any injury or loss that may be sustained by the latter by reason of
the injunction.
3-B. The Court shall, on application made after the disposal of the suit,
determine the amount payable under Rule 3-A and make an order awarding it to
the applicant.”
[Note: Cited from (2007) 2 Andh LD 75 and also available in (2007) 1 Andh LT
223].
4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside.—Any order for
an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application
made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:
407
[Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit
supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading
statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without
giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for
reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of
justice:
Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a
party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 58 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting
aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is
satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.]
High Court Amendments
MADHYA PRADESH.—In Rule 4,—
(i) after the words “by the Court”, the words “for reasons to be recorded, either on
its own motion or” shall be inserted;
(ii) at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
“Provided also that if at any stage of the suit appears to the Court that the party
in whose favour the order of injunction exists is delaying the proceedings or is
otherwise abusing the process of Court, it shall set aside the order for injunction.”
—M.P. Act 29 of 1984, S. 8 (w.e.f. 14-8-1984).
STATE AMENDMENTS
Uttar Pradesh.—In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Rule 4—
(i) after the words “by the Court”, the words “for reasons to be recorded, either on
its own motion or” shall be inserted;
(ii) at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—
“Provided that if at any stage of the suit it appears to the Court that the
party in whose favour the order of injunction exists is dilating the proceeding
or is otherwise abusing the process of Courts, it shall set aside the order for
injunction.” [Vide U.P. Act 57 of 1976, S. 13. (1-1-1977)].
5. Injunction to corporation binding on its officers.—An injunction directed to
a corporation is binding not only on the corporation itself, but also on all members and
officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain.
Interlocutory orders
6. Power to order interim sale.—The Court may, on the application of any party
to a suit, order the sale, by any person named in such order, and in such manner and
on such terms as it thinks fit, of any movable property, being the subject-matter of
such suit, or attached before judgment in such suit, which is subject to speedy and
natural decay, or which for any other just and sufficient cause it may be desirable to
have sold at once.
7. Detention, preservation, inspection, etc., of subject-matter of suit.—(1)
The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, and on such terms as it
thinks fit,—
(a) make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property
which is the subject-matter of such suit, or as to which any question may
arise therein;
(b) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorise any person to enter upon or
into any land or building in the possession of any other party to such suit; and
(c) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorise any samples to be taken, or
any observation to be made or experiment to be tried, which may seem
necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or
evidence.
(2) The provisions as to execution of process shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to
persons authorised to enter under this rule.
High Court Amendments
PUNJAB, HARYANA AND CHANDIGARH.—For existing sub-rule (1)(a) substitute the
following:—
“(a) make an order for detention, preservation or inspection of any relevant
document(s), or other evidence, or of any property which is subject-matter of
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 59 Sunday, December 06, 2020
Printed For: Khushee Wasnik, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
such suit or as to which any question may arise therein.” (11-4-1975), (23-3-
1975), (1-5-1975).
8. Application for such orders to be after notice.—(1) An application by the
plaintiff for an order under Rule 6 or Rule 7 may be made 408 [* * *] at any time after
institution of the suit.
(2) An application by the defendant for a like order may be made 409 [* * *] at any
time after appearance.
410 [(3) Before making an order under Rule 6 or Rule 7 on an application made for

the purpose, the Court shall, except where it appears that the object of making such
order would be defeated by the delay, direct notice thereof to be given to the opposite
party.]
9. When party may be put in immediate possession of land the subject-
matter of suit.—Where land paying revenue to Government, or a tenure liable to sale,
is the subject-matter of a suit, if the party in possession of such land or tenure
neglects to pay the Government revenue, or the rent due to the proprietor of the
tenure, as the case may be, and such land or tenure is consequently ordered to be
sold, any other party to the suit claiming to have an interest in such land or tenure
may, upon payment of the revenue or rent due previously to the sale (and with or
without security at the discretion of the Court), be put in immediate possession of the
land or tenure;
and the Court in its decree may award against the defaulter the amount so paid,
with interest thereon at such rate as the Court thinks fit, or may charge the amount so
paid, with interest thereon at such rate as the Court orders, in any adjustment of
accounts which may be directed in the decree passed in the suit.
10. Deposit of money, etc. in Court.—Where the subject-matter of a suit is
money or some other thing capable of delivery and any party thereto admits that he
holds such money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that it belongs or is
due to another party, the Court may order the same to be deposited in Court or
delivered to such last-named party, with or without security, subject to the further
direction of the Court.
High Court Amendments
BOMBAY, DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI—GOA, DAMAN AND DIU.—In Order XXXIX, after the
existing Rule 10, add the following rule with marginal note as new Rule 11 and its
marginal note:—
“11. Procedure on parties, defying orders of Court and committing breach of
undertaking to the Court.—Where the Court orders any party to a suit or proceeding
to do or not to do a thing during the pendency of the suit or proceeding, or where
any party to a suit or proceeding gives any undertaking to the Court to do or to
refrain from doing a thing during the pendency of the suit or proceeding, and such
party commits any default in respect of or contravenes such order or commits a
breach of such undertaking, the Court may dismiss the suit or proceeding, if the
default or contravention or breach is committed by the plaintiff or the applicant, or
strike out the defences, if the default or contravention or breach is committed by
the defendant or the opponent.
(2) The Court may, on sufficient cause being shown and on such terms and
conditions as it may deem fit to impose, restore the suit or proceeding or may hear
the party in defence, as the case may be, if the party that has been responsible for
the default or contravention or breach as aforesaid makes amends for the default or
contravention or breach to the satisfaction of the Court:
Provided that before passing any order under this sub-rule notice shall be given
to the parties likely to be affected by the order to be passed.” (1-10-1983) and (1-4
-1987).