Clean hands and settled possession defeat interim injunction, while limited restraint on business interference was preserved.

A party seeking interim injunction must come to court with clean hands and satisfy the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Here, the plaintiffs had concealed material facts and were not in physical possession of the disputed first-floor portion, while the defendant was shown to be in settled possession. That suppression disentitled the plaintiffs to continued discretionary protection, so the ex parte restraint over the suit property was vacated. Limited protection was nevertheless maintained to prevent interference with the plaintiff's business activities pending final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs, having concealed material facts and not being in physical possession of the disputed first-floor portion, were entitled to ad interim injunction and continuation of the ex parte restraint order; (ii) Whether the requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were satisfied for grant of interim relief in respect of the suit property and the business premises.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs, having concealed material facts and not being in physical possession of the disputed first-floor portion, were entitled to ad interim injunction and continuation of the ex parte restraint order?

Analysis: A party seeking equitable relief must make full and candid disclosure of all material facts. The admitted position was that the plaintiffs were residing on the ground floor, while the defendant was in possession of the first floor for a considerable time, and the plaintiffs had not been in physical possession of the front portion of the first floor. On that basis, the earlier ex parte order was obtained on an incomplete and misleading presentation of facts. Such concealment disentitled the plaintiffs to discretionary interim protection.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to continue the injunction, and the ex parte order was liable to be vacated in respect of the suit property.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were satisfied for grant of interim relief in respect of the suit property and the business premises?

Analysis: Interim injunction is governed by the settled principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. On the facts, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the disputed portion, the defendant stood in actual possession, and no irreparable harm was shown to the plaintiffs. By contrast, disturbing the defendant's settled possession would cause inconvenience to him. As regards the business, the defendants had already commenced separate business and were restrained only from interfering in plaintiff No.1's business activities pending final adjudication.

Conclusion: The conditions for interim injunction were not established in favour of the plaintiffs, and relief was declined as to the property dispute, with limited protection maintained only in relation to non-interference in the business.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection over the suit property was withdrawn because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the equitable requirements for injunction, while a limited restraint was preserved regarding interference in the business pending final disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant seeking interim injunction must come to court with clean hands and prove the settled tests of prima facie entitlement, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; suppression of material facts and lack of possession justify refusal or vacation of discretionary relief.

---