Interim injunction principles justified status quo protection for a pipeline pending decision on the temporary injunction application.

A strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury justified continuation of status quo and ex parte interim protection over the pipeline pending decision of the temporary injunction application. The Court relied on contemporaneous documentary material, including the memorandum of understanding, invoices and bank entries, and noted the absence of reliable proof of ownership in favour of the contesting respondent. It accepted that removal of the pipeline would cause serious prejudice to the applicant's uninterrupted discharge of treated effluents and found no better equitable claim to disturb the existing arrangement. Interim protection was therefore maintained under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 CPC, while the trial court was left to decide the injunction application independently and expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation of the status quo order and ex parte ad-interim protection in respect of the pipeline pending disposal of the temporary injunction application, and whether the three-fold test for interim relief was satisfied.

Analysis: The applicant had placed material showing a memorandum of understanding with the recorded owners, invoices and bank entries indicating that the pipeline had been laid and paid for before the rival claim was asserted, and the absence of any sale deed, revenue entry or reliable proof of ownership in favour of the contesting respondent. On that prima facie material, the Court found that the applicant had established a strong prima facie case. It further held that the applicant, being a paper manufacturing unit required to maintain uninterrupted discharge of treated effluents to the CETP, would suffer serious prejudice if the pipeline were removed, while the contesting respondent had not shown a better equitable claim to disturb the existing arrangement. The Court therefore found the balance of convenience in favour of preserving the existing position and held that irreparable injury would result if interim protection were refused. The matter was treated as one warranting protection under Order 39, Rule 1 read with Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to continuation of the status quo order and interim protection until the trial court decided the temporary injunction application.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted to preserve the subject matter of the suit, with the trial court directed to decide the injunction application independently and expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicant shows a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, and the existing state of affairs is supported by contemporaneous documentary material, the Court may continue status quo and grant ex parte interim protection pending decision of the injunction application.

---