Nandan Pictures Ltd. vs Art Pictures Ltd. And Ors. on 22 March, 1956
Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the decision in Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures Ltd. (AIR 1956 Cal 428) wherein it was held that it was in very rare cases that a mandatory injunction was granted on an interlocutory application and instances where such an injunction was granted by means of an 'ad interim' order pending the decision of the application itself was almost unknown. It was further held if a mandatory injunction was granted at all on an interlocutory application, it was granted only to restore the 'status quo' and not granted to establish a new state of things, differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. In my view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is well founded. In the instant case, no order could have been passed in the terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. It appears that the trial court on the ground of hardship it had granted relief to the plaintiff opposite party under the provisions under Section 151 of the Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by reference to para. 7 of the order of the trial Court, it is apparent that the delay in payment of the salary to the opposite party was due to the fact that the case of the petitioner, for concurrence was pending before the Public Service Commission and it was necessary for the University to obtain concurrence from the Public Service Commission in view of the provisions contained under Section 15 (1) of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act of 1960 read with Article 320 (3) (b) of the Constitution of India and unless concurrence was received by the University, the University could not have sanctioned payment of regular salary to the plaintiff-opposite party, utmost it could have been an ad hoc (payment?) on the ground of hardship and delay. The learned counsel pointed out that in the instant case the trial court has erred in directing in para. 8 of its judgment that the petitioner be directed to pay the plaintiff-opposite party, Rs. 8, 250/-(the salary of the plaintiff) during the pendency of the suit i.e. from Feb., 1974 till Nov., 1975 and to issue mandatory injunction to the defendant petitioners to make the said payment within a month from the receipt of the injunction order. This order was, however, stayed by this court when the application of the petitioners was admitted. In my opinion, this submission of the learned counsel is also sound. In the instant case no direction could have been made in the circumstances by the trial court to pay the said amount of salary to the opposite party. Directions should have been made only for payment of certain amount as an ad hoc payment.