Rule 7This section in its ambit comprises of issuing of notice before an order is made, in its ordinary sense, but it is found to be non-obligatory on the part of the court to issue a notice. It is binding as the security of a property is of primary concern. Any authorised official cannot be simply be granted a permission into any land which is of no consequence to the subject matter of the suit.[footnoteRef:1] [1: S.C. Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure (11th, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2009) 2372]

It is an essential requirement for any land to be inspected or preserved to be a subject matter of the suit. The property needs to fulfil the pre requisites which states that it should be a bona fide matter of the suit. The power is to be exercised by the court when required for proper adjudication and appreciation of the matter.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Subal Kumar Dey v. Purna Chandra Guri, A 1989 Ori 214,215]

Inspection of a house can be carried out to determine damage to the property or to produce an inventory of fixture, structures and movables. This can be taken up to ascertain the property of the subject matter. Use of extra judicial rights can be appointed in ascertaining the land in case of hiding of evidence and a commissioner can be appointed in identifying it.[footnoteRef:3] [3: J. Satysri Rambabu v. Smt. A. Anasuya, AIR 2005 AP 529 (530)]

The confusion arising of application of rule 7 instead of rule 9 is ascertained by the court in cases mentioned above and when such an allegation arises regarding violation of order of injunction then inspection can be carried forward just on the ground that it is ex parte and no notice being sent makes it non reject able.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Amiya Bhushan Tripathy v. Ahammad Ali, A 1987 ORI 203,204]

Rule 7 makes the court competent to issue an order for detention, preservation and inspection for not just the property of the subject matter but any movable property on which questions may arise relating to subject matter which should be kept in the house of the suit. It can also be presumed that those movables (and immovable) are in the possession of the person(s) who is in possession of the house.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Meghraj Gayatri Devi v. Jetling Rajeswari, AIR 2001 AP 349]

The provisions of rule 7 are very wide as they can also include vesting authority to a party to suit to obtain and examine account records, if they are considered evidence for the case, and rely upon them in court. In case of falsification, misappropriation, fraud, collusion, etc., enquiry into the account books can be granted when the above allegations exist. But no search can be conducted by the court on documents in possession by one party neither their detainment on the grounds that a question may arise about them in the suit. When a party is not in possession of a property then inspection shall be disallowed and alternate methods can be applied in gathering it i.e. taking photographic evidence of such a document.Stay orders assigned, during sale of property, in the execution of a decree cannot be considered a form of preservation. Whereas under this rule, the order can be passed pertaining to a mortgage suit after final decree even after sale but before confirmation.The commissioner is allowed to make an inventory of goods relating to the subject matter but wont be allowed to authorise the party to repossess the goods and produce them before court, since his findings are not considered the sole basis of findings and therefore is not sustainable.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Fosic Chung Cheneova v. Mama Bindra, AIR 1998 Cal 84,85]

Rule 8The court is allowed to make an ex parte order (under rules 6 and 7) which also includes an order to inspect a property under rule 7. After a suit has been instituted, an application for issuing an order for interim sale or the detention, preservation, inspection of the subject matter, which may include a property (movable or immovable) can be carried out.If status quo has been ordered (under order 39 rule 1) in an injunction suit and application under rule 7 has been given for passing of an interim order (and inspection has also been completed), then the non-availability of a notice to the other party will be taken as an important reason for setting aside the order. A notice in writing is required to be provided.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Arabinda Saha v. Protiti Chatterjee, 1996 AIHC 2727, 2729 (Cal)]

Rule 2

This rule applies to injunctions relating to breach of contract and injury (includes special kinds of).Injuries include any form of legal injury or wrongful acts other than those emulating from breach of contract.The discretionary nature of the interlocutory injunction makes it necessary to establish that the injunction is sine qua non:[footnoteRef:8] [8: S.C. Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure (9th, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2009) 2351]

1. A Prima facie case,2. The balance of convenience is in favour, and3. Irreparable injury shall follow

A minimum of two conditions are required to be fulfilled to be sine qua non. An injunction that restricts the government cannot be granted which withholds any amount due to a defendant. Under this rule, rights vested with a person cannot be restrained and a temporary injunction under this rule can only be granted if a prayer for permanent injunction is in demand in the suit and for no other reasons.In case of injunctions, their temporary nature can also have far reaching affects when it comes to state and public sector undertakings. So, when a lot many such injunctions are granted then they interfere with the workings of the state departments and the administration. To combat this the court should be slow in interfering with such situations and use the judicial process of revision as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code.Furthermore, force cannot be the choice of authority in such situations and shall depend on procedures established by law. When a plaintiff is forcibly made to dispossess his property on issuance of an order in a suit for permanent injunction (with tenancy), then the court can grant a temporary injunction to restore to the plaintiff his possession. And police can only act upon a final order of injunction and not an interim order.Where due to inadvertence the ad interim injunction is not extended by the court, the injunction shall be deemed to be in force, as there is no deemed vacation.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Pirthipal Singh v. Gurudev Singh, (2001) (1) Punj LR 403 (405) (P&H)]