In the case of J.M.Patel V/s. D.B.Patel, reported in 2007(1) GLR 79, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that, before granting interim injunction the court required to examine merit of case to ascertain whether plaintiff has prima facie case to success or not, the court cannot ignore material on record and circumstances, – Plaintiff need not establish his right or title at this stage, but should have a fair question to be tried, also balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The same view of the fair question to be tried and fair triable issues between the parties to be suit. In other words, it can be also said that prima – facie case means a substantial question raised, bona-fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits.
While Granting temporary injunction the tests being applied are
(1) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case
(2) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and
(3) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary injunction is allowed.
The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused, and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted.
The applicant must satisfy the court that he has a strong prima facie case and showing that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed is not granted and there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect himself from the consequences of apprehended injury. Granting of injunction is an equitable relief and such a power can be exercised when judicial intervention is absolutely necessary to protect rights and interest of the applicant. And the third condition for granting the injunction is that the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant. In Other words, the court must be satisfied that the comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it.