Law Web: No interlocutory injunction can be granted unless it is in aid of a substantive relief

All that could then be filed, therefore, would be a bare

suit for injunction restraining another party from parting with
property. The interlocutory relief would also be identical till
such time as the injunction is made permanent. Such a suit
would not be maintainable because :- (a) an interlocutory
injunction can only be granted depending on the institutional
progress of some proceeding for substantial relief, the
injunction itself must be part of the substantive relief to which
the plaintiff’s cause of action entitles him. In support of this
proposition, he relies on Siskina (Cargo Owners) Vs. Distos

Compania Navieria SA
1979 AC 210
, Fourie Vs. Le Roux
2007 (1) WLR 320; 2007 (1) All ER 1087
and Adhunik
Steels Ltd. Vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
2007 (7) SCC 125 at 136
;
(b) the cause of action for any suit must entitle a party for a
substantive relief. Since the substantive relief can not be
asked for as the dispute is to be decided by the arbitrator, the
only relief that could be asked for would be to safeguard a
property which the plaintiff may or may not be entitled to
proceed against, depending entirely on the outcome of another
proceeding, in another jurisdiction, or which the country has
no seisin; (c) in such a suit, there would be no pre-existing

right to give rise to a cause of action but the right is only
contingent / speculative and in the absence of an existing /
subsisting cause of action, a suit can not be filed; (d) the
absence of an existing / subsisting cause of action would
entail the plaint in such a suit to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11a. Further, no interlocutory injunction can be granted
unless it is in aid of a substantive relief and therefore a suit
simply praying for an injunction would also be liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11; (e) no interim relief can be
granted unless it is in aid of and ancillary to the main relief
that may be available to the party on final determination of
rights in a suit. Learned counsel refers to State of Orissa Vs.
Madan Gopal Rungta 1952(1) SCR 28

in support of the submission; (f) such
a suit would be really in the nature of a suit for interim relief
pending an entirely different proceeding. It is settled law that
by an interim order, the Court would not grant final relief.
The nature of such a suit would be to grant a final order that
would in fact be in the nature of an interim order.