Interim injunction against decree execution requires prima facie fraud or illegality plus a strong equitable basis

Temporary injunction restraining execution of an ex parte decree was refused because the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of fraud or illegality. The court treated interim restraint as a discretionary equitable remedy and held that a litigant who knew of the earlier decree, had pursued restoration proceedings unsuccessfully, and lacked diligence could not claim such relief. Although the view that an order under Order 21, Rule 29 was not appealable was not accepted, that point was not decisive. On the facts, no sufficient basis existed for interference with the refusal of injunction.

---

---

Issues: Whether temporary injunction could be granted to restrain execution of the ex parte decree, on the footing that the decree was prima facie obtained by fraud and that the petitioner would suffer injury if execution proceeded.

Analysis: The challenge to the decree was not supported by a prima facie showing of fraud. The record showed that the petitioner was aware of the earlier decree and had unsuccessfully pursued restoration proceedings on more than one occasion. The Court treated injunction as a discretionary remedy and held that a litigant who had not acted with diligence could not insist on such relief. Although the view that an order under Order 21, Rule 29 was not appealable was not accepted as correct, the decisive question remained whether the petitioner had established a sufficient basis for interim restraint. On the facts, no such basis was made out.

Conclusion: Temporary injunction to stop execution of the decree was rightly refused, and interference with the orders of the courts below was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim injunction against execution of a decree will not be granted unless the applicant establishes a prima facie case of fraud or illegality and shows a sufficient equitable basis for discretionary relief.

---