Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The first and foremost question to be considered is as to how and on what principles the Courts should exercise discretion in the matter of grant or refusal of ad interim mandatory injunctions. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India "Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors."

and a recent judgment given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA. No. 4970-71/2000 and IA. No. 268/2000 in Suit No. 1103/2000 titled Sukarma Rani Kapoor v. Om Prakash Kapoor and Ors. has vehemently argued that in cases of exceptional and undue hardship, a plaintiff may be granted relief of interim mandatory injunction even with a view to restore status quo ante so that a plaintiff who is found to be wronged does not continue to suffer till the final disposal of the suit. He also relies upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Manohar Lal Chopra v. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal" to contend that in a case where an interim relief of temporary injunction cannot be covered under Rules 1 & 2 of Order 39 CPC, the Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC for issuing an appropriate temporary injunction to do equity and uphold the interests of justice. Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 have also relief upon the same judgment reported in Manohar Lal's case (Supra) to contend that it is not a fit case for grant of interim mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff as prayed. It is also argued by learned counsel for the defendants that grant of interim relief in the present case would amount to decreeing the entire suit and as such, the relief as prayed, cannot be granted. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court "P.R. Sinha and Ors. v. Inder Krishan Raina and Ors." reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases, Page 681.

12. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments relied upon by them, this Court is of the considered view that grant of interim mandatory injunction in appropriate cases is permissible and is not a totally forbidden relief. The only requirement is that interim mandatory injunctions should not to be granted lightly as the object of interim measures ordinarily is to maintain status quo as on the date of the filing of the suit. However, in a case of exceptional hardship and with a view to do complete justice, the Court may come to the rescue of a the party by ordering status quo ante so that during the long drawn trial of the suit, one party is not made to suffer and the other permitted to enjoy the fruits of his illegal acts. The Court, however, has to ensure that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case in his favor and should be further satisfied that in case the interlocutory mandatory injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer extremely irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. No straight jacket formula or hard and fast rule can be laid down for the exercise of discretion in such matters but one thing can be safely said that an interim mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante should be granted rarely and only in cases of exceptional nature in which on account of highhandedness of a defendant the Courts conscience compels it to disturb the status quo which has come about on account of infarction of law. The argument that the interim relief would tantamount to decreeing the whole suit and as such cannot be granted can be taken care of by moulding the interim relief and attaching certain conditions thereto so that in case the suit happens to fail, the relief granted to the plaintiff through an interim order can be withdrawn and the parties may be put back to the same position in which they were on the date of the grant of such a relief. Such interim relief should be granted in rare cases of exceptional nature and the Courts are not totally precluded from issuing such interim reliefs.