Is order 39 rule 4 applicable to set aside division bench interim injunction order

An application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is permissible only if in the application seeking temporary injunction or in the affidavit supporting such application, a party has made false and misleading statement in respect to a material particular and injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party. Where an order of injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, said order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside except where such discharge, variations or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva in the case of BANK OF BARODA vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. [CM APPL. 4514/2021] on 21.02.2022.

Your question is about the interim stay granted by high court and want to vacate that interim stay?

Stay order means proceedings eclipsed, not extinguished: Karnataka HC. BENGALURU: An interim order of stay only means that proceedings against an accused gets eclipsed and not extinguished, the high court observed in a recent order, while granting partial relief to several persons in a money-laundering case.

Injunction and Stay are two different concepts. Stay refers to stoppage or suspension of judicial proceedings. And injunction refers to order restraining performance of an act or obliging to perform an act.

 the Constitution of India mandates that in the event of granting an interim order by the High Court and an application is filed to vacate the interim order, then the application must be disposed of within a period of two (2) weeks and in the event of failure, on expiry of the period of interim order or as the ..period of interim order or as the case may be the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

What are the facts? What is the context?

Hello Experts,

Also Order 39 Rule 4 is applicable in Changed Circumstances ? check below context help if you can

I need some specific judgment references for our case. As you know, the opposing party obtained an interim status quo order (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2) on 15.03.2017. This order was based on certain circumstances and what we believe were false statements.
I want to file a petition to vacate this order under Order 39 Rule 4, citing the following reasons:
*Changed Circumstances:* The minor children mentioned in the original application are now adults.
False Statements: The opposing party made a false claim of "Dada Lai" (ancestral property) to obtain the order, while the property was self-acquired.
*Misuse of Interim Relief:* The order, which was meant to allow residence in a single room, has been misused to illegally trespass and take illegal possession of the entire property.
**Misleading information* used in status quo application, One wrong statment Given in the ground of when stay order was taken.
*Undue Advantage of NRI Status:* My physical absence from the country is being unfairly exploited, and the stay order is being used as a shield, causing me continuous and irreparable harm.

I am looking for judgments that support vacating a stay order or status quo on these specific grounds, especially in cases where:
The court finds that circumstances have changed.
The order was obtained through false statements.
There has been a misuse of the interim order itself.
Please provide me with judicial precedents that can strengthen our application under Order 39 Rule 4. This will help us demonstrate to the court how the opposing party has misused the order and will be crucial in ensuring that I get justice.