Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The learned Subordinate Judge has also relied on an earlier decision of this court in the case of Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures Ltd., in holding that when in the suit the plaintiff has acknowledged dispossession, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory injunction for restoration of possession since dispossession was prior to the suit. Though an observation in the said decision if read not in its context is often cited as an authority for such a proposition, we do not think that the learned Judges really intended to lay down any such absolute proposition in the said decision. Since that observation was made having regard to the earlier authorities on the point, it would be just and proper for me to review these authorities. No doubt the observations of Beaman J. of the Bombay High Court in the Bench decision in the case of Rasul Karim v. Pirbhai Ameerbhai, AIR 1914 Bom 42 appear to support such a view when he observed; "Entertaining the doubt I had, whether in any case the mofussil courts have the power to issue mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications it appears to me that upon grounds of general expediency the proper course where applications of the kind are made would be rather to expedite the proceedings than to grant an injunction". But in the Division Bench Shah, J did not agree to such a principle when he in his turn observed : "I am not sure that the Indian Court have not similar powers under Rule 2, Order 39". But the facts remains that the observations of Beamen, J did not find approval in subsequent decisions of different High Courts including the Bombay High Court itself. In a subsequent Bench decision in the case of Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour , Mills, AIR 1914 Bom 195, it was observed by Davan, Acting C. J. as follows: "Having regard to the very clear wrding of Order 39, Rule 2 and to-- the fact that this court has always exercised the power of remedying an injury or wrong by a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application, I have no doubt whatever that this court has the power to make a mandatory order on an interlocutory application. If the court had no such power, it would be in the power of a party to cause insufferable inconvenience and grave injury to another during the whole time that would elapse between the commission of the wrongful act and the hearing of the suit filed to remedy the wrong and redress the injury". The other learned Judge fully endorsed the view of the learned Acting Chief Justice and this latter view has been approved by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Kandaswami Chetti v. P. Subramania Chetti, AIR 1918 Mad 588. Persuasive reasons given by a learned single Judge in support of the view in the case of Mdlla Surana v. Somulu, needs careful consideration.