Q. Discuss the origin of Specific Relief as Equitable Relief.

Specific relief refers to the remedy provided by the court to enforce a specific performance or
prevent the breach of an obligation.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the legal framework for granting specific relief in civil
cases. In other words, Specific relief refers to a legal remedy provided by courts to enforce a
specific obligation or obtain a specific performance from a party in a civil dispute. It is a
discretionary remedy granted by the court and is aimed at ensuring justice in cases where
monetary compensation is not an adequate solution.

It is Indian legislation that governs the principles and procedures for granting specific relief. It
defines the various forms of specific relief and lays down the conditions under which such relief
can be granted.

It aims to restore the party to the position he or she would have been in if the contract or
agreement had been performed as agreed. It may involve compelling a party to carry out their
contractual obligations or restraining them from committing a wrongful act.

Specific relief is an equitable remedy, which means it is based on principles of fairness and
justice rather than strict legal rules. It is discretionary in nature, and the court considers various
factors, such as the nature of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the practicality of
enforcing the relief, before granting specific relief.

Q. What are the reliefs sought under Specific Relief Act 1963?

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. The Specific Relief Act deals only with certain kinds of equitable reliefs and these are
now:

• Recovery of Possession of Property

• Specific Performance of Contract

• Rectification of Instrument
• Rescission of Contracts

• Cancellation of instruments

• Declaratory Decrees

• Injunctions

Q. What are the Possessory Remedies under Specific Relief Act, 1963?

The Specific Relief Act, 1963, lays down clear provisions for the recovery of possession of both
immovable and movable property. It ensures that possession is protected, disputes are resolved
through lawful means, and remedies are provided to those wrongfully dispossessed. The Act
addresses these issues under Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.

1. Section 5 focuses on the recovery of possession of immovable property based on

ownership or title. A person with the legal title to immovable property can file a suit to
reclaim possession if they are dispossessed.
a. This section is designed to protect the rights of property owners and ensure that
they can regain possession when unlawfully dispossessed. It relies on the legal
title as the foundation for the claim, requiring the plaintiff to prove their
ownership.
b. The limitation period for filing such a suit is generally 12 years, as per the
Limitation Act, and the process follows the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
provision ensures that title holders have a robust remedy to reclaim their property
through due legal processes.
2. Section 6, on the other hand, emphasizes protection against unlawful dispossession
irrespective of ownership. It allows a person who has been wrongfully dispossessed of
immovable property to recover possession, even if they do not have title over the
property.
a. This section seeks to uphold the rule of law by discouraging forceful
possession-taking and preventing individuals from resorting to self-help
measures. The primary condition for invoking this section is that the
 dispossession must be without the consent of the possessor and must lack legal
authority.
b. However, the remedy under Section 6 is time-sensitive, as a suit must be filed
within six months of dispossession. This section also prohibits suits against the
government and ensures that disputes over possession are resolved without
jeopardizing public order.
3. Section 7 governs the recovery of possession of movable property. It provides a remedy
for individuals entitled to possession of specific movable property.
a. This entitlement may arise from ownership or a special relationship, such as
bailment. The plaintiff must prove their legal right to possession of the property.
b. This section is particularly relevant for movable property that holds economic or
personal significance. For example, in cases where valuable items are unlawfully
retained by someone without legal authority, the rightful owner or possessor can
seek recovery under this provision.
c. The limitation period for suits under Section 7 is generally three years from the
date the possession becomes unlawful or is wrongfully taken.
4. Section 8 deals with specific delivery of movable property.
a. It empowers courts to direct the return of specific movable property to the rightful
possessor when the property holds unique value or cannot be replaced by
monetary compensation.
b. This provision is particularly applicable when the property in question has special
characteristics, such as family heirlooms or unique artifacts. It ensures that the
person entitled to immediate possession receives the actual property rather than
monetary compensation.
c. The defendant’s role, in such cases, is often that of a trustee or agent holding the
property without legal ownership. This provision underscores the importance of
restoring specific property when it holds value beyond its economic worth.
Q. Discuss Specific Performance of Contracts under the Act

Specific performance is granted in cases where damages are not adequate, such as contracts
involving unique goods or immovable property. For example, in a dispute over the sale of land,
the court may direct the seller to transfer the property to the buyer, as land is considered unique,
and monetary compensation may not be sufficient to substitute for it. Additionally, the court may
enforce specific performance when the contract involves obligations that are fair and reasonable
for both parties to perform.

Section 10: When Specific Performance Can Be Enforced

This section establishes the circumstances under which specific performance is an appropriate
remedy. It states that:

● Inadequate Remedy in Damages: If monetary compensation cannot adequately

compensate for the breach of contract, specific performance may be granted. For
instance, in the case of immovable property like land, which is considered unique,
damages are often deemed insufficient.
● Unique Goods or Property: Contracts involving rare or one-of-a-kind items are eligible
for specific performance because their unique nature makes them irreplaceable. Examples
include heirlooms, antiques, or property with special personal value.
● Fairness and Mutual Obligations: The contract must involve obligations that can be
fairly and reasonably enforced on both parties. Specific performance cannot be granted if
it would lead to an unjust outcome or place an unfair burden on one party.

2. Section 11: Specific Performance in Trusts

● Contracts related to trusts are generally enforceable through specific performance.

● Trust agreements involve fiduciary duties, where the trustee is obligated to act in the best
interest of the beneficiaries. Specific performance ensures that the trustee fulfills these
obligations and that the trust’s purpose is not defeated.
 ● For example, if a trustee is required to transfer trust property to a beneficiary as per the
terms of the trust, the court can compel the trustee to perform this duty.

3. Section 12: Part Performance of Contracts

This section addresses situations where a contract cannot be fully performed:

● Partial Enforcement: The court may enforce the part of the contract that can still be
performed, provided it is reasonable and does not cause undue hardship to the defendant.
● Practical Example: If a contract involves the sale of several plots of land but one plot
becomes legally unavailable due to a dispute, the court can order the sale of the
remaining plots.
● Fairness Consideration: The court ensures that partial enforcement does not lead to an
unfair advantage for one party or a disproportionate burden on the other.

Q. What are contracts that cannot be specifically performed?

Section 14 outlines the situations where specific performance cannot be granted. These
exceptions are based on the nature of the contract, its terms, and the practical difficulties
involved in enforcement. The contracts falling under this section are:

1. Contracts Requiring Personal Skill or Service (Section 14(b))

● Nature: Specific performance cannot be granted for contracts that require personal
services or skills.
● Reason: These contracts are inherently dependent on the unique skills or personal
judgment of the party, and compelling someone to perform them is impractical.
● Examples:
○ A contract for an artist to paint a specific picture.
○ A contract for an individual to perform a live music concert.
○ Contracts involving personal or professional advice (e.g., legal or medical
services).
2. Contracts with Uncertain Terms (Section 14(c))

● Nature: If the terms of the contract are vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, it cannot be
enforced by specific performance.
● Reason: The court cannot compel a party to perform a contract if it is not clear what is
expected from them, as the obligations must be definite and measurable.
● Examples:
○ A contract to deliver a “reasonable quantity of goods,” without specifying the
quantity.
○ A contract for the sale of goods with no clear terms regarding price, delivery, or
quality.

3. Contracts Requiring Continuous Supervision (Section 14(d))

● Nature: Contracts that require constant supervision by the court cannot be specifically
enforced.
● Reason: Judicial enforcement is impractical for contracts requiring ongoing supervision
or complex monitoring, as courts are not equipped to manage the day-to-day performance
of such contracts.
● Examples:
○ A contract to construct a building, where performance requires continuous
monitoring and checking for quality, safety, and other conditions.
○ A contract where the court would need to oversee the operation of a business.

4. Contracts for the Sale of Goods Not Specific or Unique (Section 14(e))

● Nature: Specific performance cannot be granted for the sale of goods that are not specific
or unique.
● Reason: Goods that are common or replaceable do not require specific performance, as
damages can sufficiently compensate for the loss.
● Examples:
○ A contract for the sale of mass-produced goods like clothing, furniture, or
electronics.
 ○ A contract for the sale of a large quantity of common items, such as grains or raw
materials.

5. Contracts Causing Hardship (Section 14(f))

● Nature: Specific performance cannot be enforced if it would cause an unreasonable or

excessive hardship on the defendant.
● Reason: Courts take into account the fairness of enforcing a contract, especially if one
party would suffer disproportionate hardship in fulfilling its terms.
● Examples:
○ A contract requiring a party to sell property located in a remote area, where
fulfilling the contract would impose high financial and logistical burdens.
○ A contract requiring a seller to deliver goods in a time frame that would create
undue financial strain on them.

6. Contracts of Discretionary Acts (Section 14(g))

● Nature: If the contract involves discretionary or subjective acts, specific performance

cannot be ordered.
● Reason: The court cannot enforce acts that depend on the discretion or personal
decision-making of a party.
● Examples:
○ A contract that allows a party to deliver goods based on their discretion, such as a
supplier who may choose whether or not to deliver the goods depending on their
stock levels.
○ A contract requiring a person to perform an act "if they choose to" or "when they
are ready."

7. Illegal or Impossible Contracts (Section 14(a))

● Nature: Contracts that involve illegal activities or are impossible to perform are excluded
from specific performance.
● Reason: Courts cannot enforce contracts that require unlawful actions or are not
physically or legally possible to fulfill.
 ● Examples:
○ A contract to sell stolen goods or contraband.
○ A contract requiring the performance of an act that is impossible due to legal
restrictions, such as a contract to sell land that is already owned by someone else.

Q. What is substituted Performance of Contracts?

Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 outlines the substituted performance of contracts.
The key provisions of this section are as follows:

● Default by the Promisor: If a party to the contract fails to perform their obligations or
defaults in the contract, the other party may, with the permission of the court, have the
contract performed by another party.
● Notice Requirement: The party seeking substituted performance must give reasonable
notice to the defaulting party of their intention to have the contract performed by another
party. This notice allows the defaulting party an opportunity to perform the contract
before a third party steps in.
● Court's Permission: The substituted performance of the contract cannot be carried out
without the permission of the court. The court assesses whether it is appropriate for a
third party to perform the obligations and whether it will affect the original intent of the
contract.
● Nature of Contract: The performance must be of such a nature that it can be carried out
by someone else without defeating the essence of the contract.

2. Application of Substituted Performance

● Feasibility: The court will allow substituted performance only if it is feasible and does not
alter the overall purpose of the contract. If the contract can be completed by a third party,
the court may grant permission for such substitution.
● Personal Contracts: As previously stated, the remedy of substituted performance is not
applicable to contracts requiring personal skill or performance, such as contracts with
artists, athletes, or professionals, where the personal attributes of the performer are
central to the contract's purpose.
For instance, If a construction company is contracted to build a house and fails to complete the
work, the client could hire another contractor to finish the project, with court approval. The
original contractor might be required to compensate the client for any additional costs incurred
due to their default.

4. Limitations and Exceptions

● Non-Substitutable Personal Contracts: As stated, if the contract is inherently personal and

involves a party’s specific skills (for example, a contract for a singer to perform at a
concert), substituted performance cannot be ordered by the court, as personal skills
cannot be transferred to another party.
● Court’s Discretion: The court has wide discretion in this matter, and it must ensure that
substituting performance does not alter the essence or the nature of the contract. If
substitution would make it impossible to fulfill the original purpose of the contract, the
remedy will not be allowed.

Q. Rectification of Instruments under the Act.

Rectification of instruments is a legal remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which
allows a court to correct or amend a written instrument (such as a contract, deed, or agreement)
to reflect the true intention of the parties. This remedy is available when there is a mistake in the
instrument, either due to error, fraud, or omission, and it is necessary to correct it in order to
ensure that the instrument accurately represents what the parties agreed upon.

Rectification of Instruments (Section 26)

1. Nature of Rectification

● Purpose: The primary purpose of rectification is to correct an instrument that does not
accurately reflect the true intentions or agreement of the parties due to a mistake.
Rectification does not alter the actual agreement or create a new agreement but rather
ensures that the instrument corresponds to the true understanding of the parties.
 ● Key Element: Rectification is typically applied when the mistake is clerical, accidental,
or due to misrepresentation, but the agreement between the parties was valid. The
instrument itself, however, might contain errors that distort or do not match the actual
intentions of the parties involved.

2. Conditions for Rectification

To obtain rectification under Section 26, the following conditions must be met:

● Mistake or Misrepresentation: There must be a clear mistake or misrepresentation in

the instrument, either due to a clerical error, omission, or other factors like fraud or
misunderstanding. This mistake must be evident to the court.
● True Intention: It must be shown that there was a mutual understanding between the
parties regarding the terms of the instrument, and the written document does not reflect
this intention.
● Proof of Mistake: The party seeking rectification must prove that the instrument does not
reflect their true intention. This may require evidence like oral agreements, previous
drafts, or communications showing the correct agreement.
● No Third-Party Rights: The rectification of the instrument should not infringe upon the
rights of third parties who have acted in good faith and are relying on the instrument as it
currently stands. The court will not rectify an instrument if doing so would negatively
affect third-party rights.

3. Process of Rectification

● Application to Court: A party seeking rectification must apply to the court for the
correction of the instrument. The application must include details about the mistake, the
true intention of the parties, and the evidence supporting the claim.
● Court’s Role: The court examines the instrument, the facts of the case, and any available
evidence. If the court is satisfied that there is an error in the instrument, it will order
rectification to ensure that the instrument accurately reflects the true intention of the
parties.
 ● Form of Rectification: The court may either direct that a new instrument be drawn up to
replace the existing one or order that the existing instrument be amended. Rectification
can involve adding, deleting, or altering specific terms or provisions in the document.

Suppose two parties agree to a contract where one party will supply goods to another at a
specified price. However, due to a clerical mistake, the price mentioned in the written contract is
lower than what was actually agreed upon. The aggrieved party can apply for rectification of the
contract to reflect the correct price.

5. Limitations on Rectification

● No Alteration of Substantial Terms: Rectification is not meant to alter the terms of the
contract substantially. The intent is to correct a mistake in the document, not to change
the essence of the agreement.
● No Rectification for Disagreement: Rectification is only available when there is a
genuine mistake or misunderstanding. If the parties disagree about the terms of the
contract, rectification will not be allowed. In such cases, the remedy is to renegotiate the
terms or seek other remedies such as damages.
● Equitable Remedy: The remedy of rectification is equitable in nature. The court must be
satisfied that it is fair and just to correct the document and that the correction does not
harm any other party.

Q. What is Recession of Contract? What are the provisions as stated under

the Act?

Rescission essentially cancels the contract, meaning both parties are released from further
performance. The contract is treated as void from the outset, and the parties return to their
pre-contract positions as much as possible.

The objective of rescission is to restore both parties to the position they were in before the
contract was made. For example, if one party has already provided goods or services, the
contract will be rescinded, and the party will have to return any goods or payments received.
Grounds for Rescission (Section 19)

Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 outlines the grounds on which a contract may be
rescinded:

● Fraud: If a contract is entered into by one party on the basis of fraud committed by the
other party, the contract may be rescinded. Fraud can include intentional
misrepresentation or concealment of facts.
● Coercion: If the contract was made under duress or with threats of harm, the contract
may be rescinded. Coercion can involve threats to a person or property that force
someone to enter into the contract.
● Undue Influence: If one party takes advantage of their dominant position to influence
the decision of the other party in a way that undermines their free will, the contract can be
rescinded.
● Misrepresentation: When one party misrepresents facts that induce the other party to
enter into the contract, rescission may be allowed.
● Mistake: If both parties are under a mutual mistake concerning a fact that is material to
the contract, rescission can be granted.

2. Time Limits for Rescission (Section 27)

● A party seeking rescission must do so within a reasonable time after discovering the
grounds for rescission. The party cannot delay their decision to rescind indefinitely.
● Ratification: If the aggrieved party knowingly affirms or ratifies the contract after
learning about the fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion, they lose the right to rescind the
contract.

3. Procedure for Rescission

● The aggrieved party must apply to the court for rescission. The court evaluates whether
the grounds for rescission exist and whether it is fair and just to grant the remedy.
● Restitution: The principle of restitution is applied, where both parties are required to
return what they received under the contract, as far as possible. If return is not feasible,
the party seeking rescission may be entitled to compensation.
4. Discretion of the Court (Section 30)

● Rescission is not automatic and is discretionary. The court has the authority to deny
rescission if it is unfair to the other party or if the contract has been substantially
performed.

5. Limitation on Rescission

● The court will not grant rescission if it would affect the rights of third parties who have
acquired property or rights in good faith.

6. Consequences of Rescission

● Once the contract is rescinded, the parties are released from their obligations under it, and
any benefits received must be returned. If return is not possible, compensation may be
awarded.

Q. Discuss ‘Cancellation of instrument’ under Specific Relief Act, 1963

The cancellation of an instrument is addressed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. This remedy allows for the cancellation of a written document (such as a contract, deed, or
agreement) when it is deemed to be void, ineffective, or invalid due to reasons such as fraud,
misrepresentation, or undue influence. The cancellation of an instrument is a judicial remedy that
invalidates the document, and it effectively releases the parties from the obligations or rights
conferred by that instrument.

1. Meaning and Effect of Cancellation (Section 31)

● Purpose: The primary purpose of cancellation of an instrument is to eliminate a

document that is legally void or ineffective. This remedy ensures that no rights or
obligations arise from the document after cancellation.
● Nature of the Remedy: Unlike rescission, which terminates a contract and returns the
parties to their original position, cancellation nullifies the instrument itself, preventing
any future legal consequences that could arise from it. It does not necessarily restore the
 parties to the position they were in before the instrument was executed, unless restitution
is ordered.

2. Grounds for Cancellation

The court may order the cancellation of an instrument if it is found to be:

● Void or Voidable: If the instrument is void from the outset or becomes void due to
factors such as lack of consent, incapacity of the parties, or failure to comply with
necessary legal requirements, the instrument may be cancelled.
● Obtained by Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the instrument was executed under
fraudulent circumstances or if one party misrepresented material facts that induced the
other party to sign the document, the instrument can be cancelled.
● Coercion or Undue Influence: If the instrument was signed under duress or undue
influence, making the party’s consent invalid, the instrument may be cancelled.
● Mistake: If the instrument reflects a mutual mistake between the parties concerning a
material fact that was fundamental to the agreement, the instrument may be cancelled.
● Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements: In some cases, if the instrument does
not comply with certain statutory requirements (for example, if it is not signed or
witnessed as required by law), the court may cancel it.

3. Process for Cancellation

● Application to Court: The party seeking cancellation of the instrument must file a suit in
the appropriate court. The application should include the grounds for cancellation and
any supporting evidence showing that the instrument is invalid or void.
● Restitution: In some cases, cancellation may also involve the principle of restitution,
requiring one or both parties to return what they have received under the instrument, if
return is possible.
● Relief for Third-Party Rights: The court may also consider whether third-party rights
would be adversely affected by the cancellation of the instrument. If third-party rights
have been acquired in good faith and for value, the court may refuse to cancel the
instrument.
4. Court's Discretion

The cancellation of an instrument is a discretionary remedy, and the court will assess the merits
of each case before granting the relief. Factors such as the timing of the application, whether the
party seeking cancellation has acted promptly, and whether there are any equitable
considerations will influence the court’s decision.

● Equitable Remedy: Like many remedies under the Specific Relief Act, cancellation is
not an automatic right. The court will balance the interests of the parties and the effect of
cancellation on third parties.

Q. What is a Declaratory Decree?

1. A declaratory decree is issued when a party seeks to establish or clarify their legal right
without asking for any consequential relief (such as compensation or specific action). The court
does not grant specific relief, but simply declares the legal position regarding the matter.

● Purpose: The primary purpose of a declaratory decree is to provide judicial clarification

and certainty regarding the rights or obligations of the parties involved, especially in
cases where there is ambiguity or uncertainty.

2. Grounds for Seeking a Declaratory Decree

Under Section 34, a party may seek a declaratory decree if:

● There is a dispute regarding the existence, validity, or enforcement of a legal right.

● The party does not require any enforcement of that right or consequential action (such
as recovery of possession or damages).
● The party seeks to establish their rights, particularly in cases where the existence of
those rights is disputed or unclear.

3. When is a Declaratory Decree Granted?

● The court will grant a declaratory decree if it is satisfied that:

○ A legal right exists, and the party seeking the decree has a legitimate claim to it.
 ○ The party has no other remedy or cannot adequately establish their rights
through other means, such as specific performance or injunction.
● It is granted when a party’s legal rights are under threat, but they do not yet require
immediate enforcement.

4. The Court’s Power under Section 34

● Declaratory Decrees are discretionary and the court may decide not to grant the
declaration if it deems unnecessary or if other reliefs are available.
● The court may also issue a declaratory decree without consequential relief if the
circumstances do not require further action or enforcement.

5. Consequential Relief

Although Section 34 specifically deals with declarations and does not involve granting
consequential relief, a party seeking a declaratory decree may also apply for consequential
relief under Section 35, if needed.

● Consequential relief can include orders such as an injunction (to prevent further
violations of the right) or specific performance (to compel someone to perform an act
under a contract).

7. Limitations of Declaratory Decree

● A declaratory decree does not enforce a right or impose an obligation. It simply

clarifies the existence or non-existence of a right.
● It does not change the status quo or require the party to do anything. If the party wants
enforcement of their right, they would need to seek additional relief such as injunction,
specific performance, or damages.

Q. Discuss Injunctions under the Act.

1. What is an Injunction?

An injunction is a court order that either:

 ● Prevents a party from doing a certain act (known as a prohibitory injunction), or
● Compels a party to do a specific act (known as a mandatory injunction).

Injunctions are typically sought when there is an urgent need to prevent harm that cannot be
adequately compensated by monetary damages or other remedies.

Key Provisions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963

2. Section 36: Grant of Injunction

● Section 36 grants the power to the court to issue an injunction to prevent the breach of an
obligation or to do something necessary to protect the legal rights of the parties.
● Injunctions are not automatic; they are granted by the court at its discretion based on the
facts of the case and the adequacy of other legal remedies.

3. Section 37: Kinds of Injunctions

● Prohibitory Injunction: This injunction prevents a party from doing something that would
infringe on another party's legal rights. For example, preventing someone from
trespassing on a property.
● Mandatory Injunction: This injunction requires a party to perform a specific act or duty.
For example, ordering a person to deliver goods that were wrongfully withheld.
● Temporary Injunction: A temporary injunction is granted to preserve the status quo
until the final decision in the case is made. It is granted for a short period of time and can
be extended as needed.
● Perpetual Injunction: A perpetual injunction is issued after the court has heard the
case and comes to a final decision. This injunction is intended to permanently prevent a
party from continuing a particular action or practice.

4. Section 38: Grant of Injunctions to Prevent Breach of Contract

● The court can grant an injunction to prevent the breach of a contract if it is determined
that damages or other remedies would not be an adequate relief. This remedy is
 particularly important in cases where a contract involves unique or irreplaceable subject
matter, such as real estate or intellectual property.

5. Section 39: Injunctions to Perform a Positive Act

● Under Section 39, the court may grant a mandatory injunction if it is necessary to compel
a party to perform a specific act or duty that has been agreed upon or required by law.

Conditions for Granting Injunction

The court will consider the following factors before granting an injunction:

● Existence of Legal Right: The party seeking the injunction must show that they have a
legal right that needs protection.
● Irreparable Harm: The party must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm
(harm that cannot be compensated by monetary damages) if the injunction is not granted.
● Adequate Remedy at Law: If an alternative remedy, such as damages, would be
sufficient, the court may not grant an injunction. Injunctions are generally granted when
no other remedy is available or sufficient.
● Balance of Convenience: The court will weigh whether the balance of convenience
favors the applicant (i.e., whether granting the injunction is more beneficial than denying
it).
● Public Interest: The court will consider whether granting an injunction will be in the
public interest or whether it will cause harm to the public.

Section 40: Injunctions for a Wrongful Act

● Section 40 grants the court the power to issue an injunction if a person is acting
unlawfully, such as engaging in trespass or infringement of intellectual property rights.

1. Permanent Injunction
 ● If the court is satisfied that a party's legal right is being repeatedly violated or will be
violated in the future, a permanent injunction may be granted to permanently stop the
infringing party from committing the wrongful act.

2. Injunctions in Specific Cases

● Injunctions may also be granted in specific cases such as those involving property
disputes, intellectual property infringement, or breach of trust. In such cases, the
injunction can be used to preserve evidence, prevent ongoing harm, or preserve the status
quo.