Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Then again in another before the one I have Hervey v. Smith (1855) 1 K. & J. 389, that mandatory injunction resembling the injunction case. There stood between alleged to be a party wall from the rooms in the adjoining tenements, and the defendant apparently suddenly placed tiles on the tops of the chimneys with the result that very great inconvenience was caused to the plaintiff. On an interlocutory application the Vice Chancellor, Page Wood, held that having regard to the great inconvenience occasioned to the plaintiff, and the numerous and delicate equities involved in the case, there could be no harm in directing the defendant upon this interlocutory application immediately to remove the tiles. I think that this is really referable to a doctrine, which, I believe, was long prevalent in England that the issue of mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications could most properly be made in matters of nuisance, where the continuing nuisance even up to the hearing might affect the health or life of the plaintiff. Analysis shows that this doctrine is infected with the same illogicality for the issue of the mandatory injunction presupposes the success of the plaintiff in the suit and is precipitated for the reason that deferring the remedy may be dangerous; but suppose the defendant succeeds, it. is clear that the ground would be cut away from under this principle and the plaintiff would have to put up with the nuisance however dangerous.