Interim injunction against a non-party is unavailable where no substantive relief can be claimed in the main suit.

Interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC cannot be granted against a stranger to the suit where the plaint seeks no substantive relief against that person. Interim relief must rest on a prima facie entitlement to the final relief in the main proceedings, and if no declaration or consequential remedy can be granted against the proposed injunction debtor, the injunction lies outside the rule's proper scope. The fact that execution of a decree may incidentally affect the applicant's rights does not, by itself, justify interlocutory restraint against a non-party.

---

---

Issues: Whether an interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be granted against a person who was not a party to the suit, and where no corresponding relief could be granted against that person in the main suit.

Analysis: Interim relief is granted only on the footing that the applicant is prima facie entitled to the substantive relief claimed in the suit. Where the main suit contains no claim or issue against the proposed injunction debtor, and no relief could be granted against him on the termination of the suit, the grant of interim relief would be outside the proper scope of Order 39, Rule 1(a). The circumstance that execution of a decree may affect the applicant's claimed rights does not, by itself, justify an injunction against a stranger to the suit, especially when the suit itself does not seek any declaration or relief concerning that decree.

Conclusion: The Court held that the interim injunction could not be granted against the respondent, who was not a party to the suit and against whom no relief was maintainable in the main proceedings.

---