1

WORKSHOP PAPER.

Subject : Law of Injunction :

(i) Mandatory Injunction &

(ii) Perpetual injunction.

INTRODUCTION

(1) Under Indian Legal System, the law relating to

injunction has been provided in the Specific Relief Act,
1963.An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is
ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or
thing. In the former case, it is called restrictive injunction,
in the later a mandatory injunction. The law relating to
injunctions is contained in sections 36 to 42 of the Specific
Relief Act and in order XXXIX Rules 1 to 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

Meaning and scope of injunctions

(2) An injunction is a court order requiring a person

to do or cease doing a specific action.

(3) Injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the

court and failure to comply with an injunction may result in
contempt of court.

(4) An injunction is a specific order of the Court

.......2
 2

forbidding the commission of a wrong threatened or the

continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun.
An injunction will not be granted where there is an
adequate remedy in damages.

Classification of Injunctions

(5) Injunction is categorized in two form i.e.

Permanent Injunction and Temporary Injunction.

Perpetual Injunction

(6) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the

decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit;
the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the
assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which
would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.

(7) An injunction is a judicial process whereby a

party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular
Act or thing. In the former case it is called a restrictive
injunction and in the later a mandatory injunction.
Injunctions are either interlocutory or perpetual.
Interlocutory or temporary injunctions are such as are to
continue until the hearing of the cause upon the merits or
generally until further orders. Thus a temporary injunction
ends with the suit or earlier when the order so directs.
Perpetual injunctions are such as form part of the decree
made at the hearing upon the merits. Injunction if granted

.......3
 3

being ineffectual and of no use to party concerned, then

such injunction should not be granted by the court.

(8) The effect and object an ad interim injunction is

merely to keep matters in status quo until the final disposal
of the suit. The court interferes on the assumption that a
party who seeks its interference has a legal right which he
asserts, but needs the aid of the Court for the protection of
the property in question until legal right can be ascertained.

(9) Form No. 8 of schedule I appendix F of the Civil

Procedure Code sets forth how an injunction order is to be
passed. Such an order injuncts the respondents, his
servants, workman or relations from infringing the
injunction order. If this form is not adhered to and only
respondent is injuncted third parties who infringed the
order cannot be proceeded against under Order 39 of the
Civil Procedure Code.

(10) As per the provision of Section 9-A of the Civil

Procedure Code, where at the hearing of application
relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is
taken, then it is mandatory for the court to decide such
issue as preliminary issue. The said provision provides that
if at the hearing of the application for granting or setting
aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way
of stay, injunction, appointment of receiver or otherwise
made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the
Court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties

.......4
 4

to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the

hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction
as preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the
order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall
be heard and disposed off by the Court as expeditiously as
possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the
hearing of the suit. However, sub section (2) of section 9-A
of the said Code provided that at the hearing of application
objecting jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may grant
such interim relief as it may consider necessary pending
determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the
jurisdiction.

Section 38 : Perpetual injunction when granted :

(11) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the

decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit.
The defendant is thereby perpetually restrained from the
assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which
would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. Sub Section
(3) specifically lays down the circumstances under which a
perpetual injunction can be granted by the court. When the
defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right
to, or enjoyment of property the court may grant perpetual
injunction in the following cases, namely -

(a) Where the defendant is trustee of the

property for the plaintiff;

.......5
 5

(b) Where there exists no standard for

ascertaining the actual damage caused
or likely to be caused by the invasion;

(c) Where the invasion is such that

compensation in money would not
afford adequate relief; and

(d) Where the injunction is necessary to

prevent a multiplicity of judicial
proceedings.

Distinction between interlocutory and

perpetual injunction

(12) As regards the time of their operation injunctions

are either temporary or perpetual. As mentioned earlier a
temporary injunction is provisional in its nature, continuing
until a specific time or until the further order of the Court
and does not conclude a right. Its object is to maintain
things in status quo until the questions at issue are decided
by the Court. It may be granted at any stage of the suit and
to obtain it the plaintiff has only to make out a prima facie
case. A perpetual, on the other hand can only be granted by
a decree made at the hearing and upon merits of the suit.
Its object is to see that the defendant is perpetually
enjoying from the assertion of a right or from the
commission of an act which would be contrary to the rights
of the plaintiff as finally established before the Court. It is a
decree which concludes right.

(13) When plaintiff applies for an injunction to

restrain violation of an alleged right, if the existence of the

.......6
 6

right be disputed, he must establish that right before he

gets the injunction to prevent the recurrence of its violation.
A suit for perpetual injunction is not to be dismissed per-se
for absence of prayer of declaration of title, if the plaint
discloses foundation of the title of the plaintiff.
(Corporation of Bangalore City Vs. M. Papaiah, AIR 1989
Supreme Court 1809). Where the allegation is that the
plaintiff is in possession and the suit is for an injunction
against threatened eviction he is entitled to sue for mere
injunction without adding prayer for declaration of his
rights. Under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act a suit for
mere declaration does not lie when the consequential relief
e.g. injunction is available but under section 38 of the said
Act the relief of injunction can be granted even if no
declaratory relief implicit in the injunction is expressly
prayed for. Proof of damage is not necessary for granting of
an injunction in a case in which the parties to the contract
for valuable consideration with their eyes open contract
that a particular thing should not be done. When injury
caused to plaintiff is actionable for say, damages could be
presumed.

(14) Perpetual injunction may be granted to the

plaintiff when the defendant invaded or threatened to
invade the plaintiff's right to or enjoyment of property
where the invasion is such that compensation in money
would not afford adequate relief and injunction is necessary
to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceeding.

.......7
 7

Disobedience to injunction

(15) Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code

provides for the enforcement of the decree by commitment
of a person disobeying to the civil prison or by attachment
of property.

Mandatory injunction

(16) In relatively rare cases, the court may issue a

"mandatory injunction", compelling a person, company, or
governmental unit take affirmative action to do something.
It is not infrequent that a covenanter or his successor acts
in breach of the terms of the terms of a covenant which
binds him not to do something. The coventee then seeks a
mandatory injunction requiring the covenanter to undo
what has already been done, so far as that is possible,
perhaps requiring him to destroy what has already been
constructed. It is because the mandatory injunction is such
a draconian remedy that the courts have often sought the
smallest excuse for refusing it. This reluctance is
particularly evident if the application is interlocutory
because at the end of the suit, it is as well possible that the
allegations against the defendant are proved false; then the
previous interlocutory decree did injustice to his right to
enjoyment of some property or benefits of a business.
Injunctions historically are issued, only "when the remedy at
law is inadequate.

.......8
 8

Mandatory injunctions when granted

(17) To prevent the breach of an obligation, necessity

to compel the performance of certain acts. The Court is
capable of enforcing, it is a discretionary relief.

(18) A mandatory injunction may be defined as one

which commands the doing of some positive act by the
defendant, some times changing the status of the party. A
mandatory injunction forbids the defendant to permit the
continuance of an wrongful state of things that already
exists at the time when the injunction is issued. The purpose
of mandatory injunction is thus to restore a wrongful state
of things to their former rightful order. The relief of
interlocutory mandatory injunctions is thus granted
generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last
non-contested status which preceded the pending
controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be
granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have
been illegally done or the restoration of that which was
wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the
granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would
fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great
injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it
was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party
who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great
injustice or irreparable harm.

(19) A mandatory injunction forbids the defendant to

.......9
 9

permit the continuance of a wrongful state of things that

already exists at the time when the injunction is issued. The
purpose of mandatory injunction is thus to restore a
wrongful state of things to their former rightful order.
Injunction is a specific order of the Court forbidding the
commission of a wrong threatened or the continuance of a
wrongful course of action which had already begun. Its
primary purpose is preserving matters in status quo. It
never assumes finality to dispose of the rights. Maintenance
of status quo in a premises means not making any physical
change.

(20) In the matter of granting relief of mandatory

injunction, the grant of relief is to be judged not on the
footing alone that the action of the party sued against is
lawful but on other considerations namely whether the
plaintiff could be adequately compensated or whether the
grant of injunction was necessary to do justice or not.

(21) The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions

are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status
quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the
pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief
may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that
have been illegally done or the restoration of that which
was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since
the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or
would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great
injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it

.......10
 10

was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party

who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great
injustice or irreparable harm Courts have evolved certain
guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are :

(1) The plaintiff has a strong case

for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher
standard than a prima facie case that is
normally required for a prohibitory
injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent

irreparable or serious injury which
normally cannot be compensated in terms
of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is

in favour of the one seeking such relief.

(22) To get a mandatory injunction, whether

permanent or temporary plaintiff should be specific that
there was breach of obligation and certain acts are
necessary to restore the status-quo.

(23) When defendant ignores pending proceedings

and presses on with building operations, he takes the risk of
having the building pulled down. There can be no
mandatory injunction against trespasser compelling he to

.......11
 11

come on the land on which he had trespass and to remove

an encroachment made by him thereon, but the trespasser
may be allowed to remove the materials of the building
which he has built over the land of another.

(24) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction u/s

38 or mandatory injunction u/s 39 of the Specific Relief Act
may claim damages either in addition to or in substitution
for, such injunction and the court may if it thinks fit award
such damages. But no relief for damages shall be granted
unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in his plaint.
Since the plaintiff can be adequately compensated in terms
of money if there was breach of obligation on part of
defendant therefore plaintiff cannot become entitled to
interim mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunction could
be granted only if a party is feared to suffer grave injustice
but if party is itself not bonafide and is found to be engage
in malafide practice, it cannot be granted a mandatory
injunction. If due to non granting of mandatory injunction a
party is supposed to suffer a lot, a temporary mandatory
injunction can well be granted.

(25) Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides

that a decree granting mandatory injunction shall have to
be executed within three years from the date of decree or
where a date is fixed for performance, from such date.
However, it is clear that proviso attached to Article 136 is
self-explanatory to the effect that for the enforcement of
execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction shall

.......12
 12

not be subject to any period of limitation [M.A.Raja Vs.

Vedhantham Pillai, 2000 (2) CTC 199, Madras High
Court].

Section 40 : Damages in lieu of, or

in addition to injunction -

(26) The plaintiff may claim damages under section

38, or under section 39. The plaintiff shall claim damages
in his plaint: plaint can be amended at any stage of the suit.
The dismissal of a suit is bar to claim damages.

Section 41 of Specific Relief Act

Injunction when refused

(27) An injunction cannot be granted -

(a) to stay a judicial proceeding

pending at the institution of the suit in
which the injunction is sought, unless such
restraint is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of proceedings;

(b) to stay proceedings in a Court not

subordinate to that from which the
injunction is sought;

(c) to restrain persons from applying

to any legislative body;

.......13
 13

(d) to interfere with the public duties

of any department or the Central
Government or any State Government, or
with the sovereign acts of a foreign
Government;

(e) to stay proceedings in any

criminal matter;

(f) to prevent the breach of a

contract the performance of which would
not be specifically enforced;

(g) to prevent, on the ground of

nuisance, an act of which it is not
reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;

(h) to prevent a continuing breach in

which the applicant has acquiesced;

(i) when equally efficacious relief

can certainly be obtained by any other usual
mode of proceeding, except in case of
breach of trust;

(j) when the conduct of the applicant

or his agents has been such as to dis-entitle
him to be assistance of the Court.

.......14
 14

(k) where the applicant has no

personal interest in the matter.

CONCLUSION :

(28) To sum up, injunction means ‘It is an order of

Court by which an individual is required to perform, or is
restrained from performing, a particular act. It is judicial
process. The courts exercise their power to issue
injunctions judiciously, and only when necessity exists. An
injunction is generally issued only in cases where
irreparable injury to the rights of an individual would result
otherwise. It should be readily apparent to the court that
some act has been performed, or is threatened, that will
cause irreparable injury to the party seeking the injunction.
An injury is generally considered irreparable when it
cannot be adequately compensated by an award of
damages. The pecuniary damage that would be incurred
from the threatened action need not be great, however. If a
loss can be calculated in terms of money, there is no
irreparable injury. The consequent refusal by a court to
grant an injunction is, therefore, proper.. Injunctive relief is
not a matter of right, but its denial is within the discretion
of the court. Whether or not an injunction will be grant
varies with the facts of each case.

Submitted with respect

(D.G.DHAMAL)
SANGLI. Head of the Core Group (Civil),
30-09-2015 DJ-1and Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangli.

.......15
 15

IMPORTANT CITATIONS & GUIDELINES OF HON'BLE

APEX COURT AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(1) In AIR 1989 Bom 247 (Baban Narayan Landge

V/s Mahadu Bhikaji Tonchar and others), it is observed
that :
“Civil Court can issue at an interlocutory stage
a mandatory injunction so as to restore the
status quo anterior to the date of institution of
a suit.”

(2) In AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 867 (Dorab

Cawasji Warden v/s. Coomi Sorab Warden) the Hon'ble Apex
Court has given guidelines for grant of mandatory
injunction which are as follows :

“Though the Courts have the power to grant

interim injunction, such power ought not to be
exercised as a matter of course. Interim
mandatory injunctions may be granted generally
to preserve or restore the status quo of the last
non-contested status which preceded the
pending controversy until the final hearing when
full relief may be granted or to compel the
undoing of those acts which have been illegally
done or the restoration of that which was
wrongfully taken by the party complaining”.

(3) In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen

Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006 Case No. Appeal
(Civil) 1101 of 2006 in which it was held that :-

“An interim mandatory injunction is not a

remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that
is passed only in circumstances which are clear
and the prima facie materials clearly justify a

.......16
 16

finding that the status quo has been altered by

one of the parties to the litigation and the
interests of justice demanded that the status
quo ante be restored by way of an interim
mandatory injunction. Thus, prima facie, we
find that the tenancy claimed by the plaintiff
remains to be proved in the suit. For the
present, we should say that prima facie, the
plaintiff has not been able to establish the
foundation for the possession claimed by him. It
is significant to note that not even another
tenant of the building among the various
tenants in the building, was examined to
establish that the plaintiff while in possession,
had been dispossessed on 20.6.1998 as claimed
by him. Any way, the Additional District Judge
has not referred to any such evidence except
referring to the affidavit of Shivanand Mishra,
who even according to the plaintiff was no more
in occupation. Thus, the disturbance of the
status quo by the defendants has not been
established. Thus, prima facie it is clear that the
plaintiff has not laid the foundation for the
grant of an interim order of mandatory
injunction in his favour. The order so passed by
the Additional District Judge, and confirmed by
the High Court, therefore, calls for interference
in this appeal.”

(4) In Shrimant Chhatrapati Udyanraje

Pratapsinhmaharaj Bhosale Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Vijaysinhraje Shahumaharaj Bhosale, reported in 2015(5)
Mh.L.J. 350, it is held that :

Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court-

Civil procedure Code S.9 - Jurisdiction of
Civil Court- Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not
ousted, unless entire suit, as brought, is barred.
Mere fact that a portion of claim is excluded
from jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not a bar to
trial, particularly of remaining portion of same
suit which is not so excluded.

.......17
 17

(5) In Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Mumbai Vs.

Indraprastha Developers, Pune, reported in 2015(3)
Mh.L.J. 786, it is held that :

"Concept of "Lack of jurisdiction" - "Excess of

jurisdiction" - Exercise of jurisdiction
"illegally" or "with material irregularity".

(6) AIR 1990 SC 8671

(Dorab Cawasji Warden vs.
Coomi Sorab Warden & ors. )

Guidelines :
1. The plaintiff has a strong case
for trail. That is it shall be of a higher
standard than a prima-facie case that is
normally required for a prohibitory
injunction.

2. It is necessary to prevent
irreparable or serious injury which
normally cannot be compensated in terms
of money.

3. The balance of convenience is in

favour of the one seeking such relief.

(7) In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick

Das, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 2251, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that:
As a principle, ex-parte injunction
could be granted only under exceptional

.......18
 18

circumstances. The factors which should

weight with the court in the grant of ex-
parte injunctions are:-

a. whether irreparable or serious

mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;

b. whether the refusal of ex-parte

injunction would involve greater injustice
than the grant of it would involve;

c. the court will also consider the time

at which the plaintiff first had notice of
the act complained so that the making of
improper order against a party in his
absence is prevented;

d. the court will consider whether the

plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and
in such circumstances it will not grant ex-
parte injunction:

e. the court would expect a party

applying for ex-parte injunction;

f. even if granted the ex-parte

injunction would be for a limited period of
time;

g. general principles like prima-facie

case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss would also be considered
by the court.

(8) In Mahadev Savlaram Shelke vs. Pune

Municipal Corporation reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33,
Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned the courts while granting
ex-parte ad-interim injunctions in following manner :

.......19
 19

1. Rule 3. Notice to defendant is a

rule, ex-parte injunction is an exception.

2. when ex-parte injunction is granted,

compliance of Rule 3 is must.

3. Application must be disposed off

within 30 days - Rule 3A.

4. If the order requires any

modification, cancellation, variance the
same should be done at the earliest
opportunity to save the defendant from
undue hardship. Rule 4.

5. Rule-7. Powers of detention,

preservation, inspection of the subject
matter of the suit should be exercised
cautiously by passing the reasoned order.

6. Bond of compensation can be taken

from the plaintiff in the case of granting
the temporary injunction if the injunction
is found to be taken on the grounds which
were not genuine, specially in respect of
public project.

(9) In Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy

reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033, while considering
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has given following guidelines :

“17. To summarize, the position in

regard to suits for prohibitory injunction
relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's

title and he does not have possession, a suit
for declaration and possession, with or without

.......20
 20

a consequential injunction, is the remedy.

Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or
under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he
has to sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff's lawful possession
or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to
sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is

concerned only with possession, normally
the issue of title will not be directly and
substantially in issue. The prayer for
injunction will be decided with reference
to the finding on possession. But in cases
where de-jure possession has to be
established on the basis of title to the
property, as in the case of vacant sites, the
issue of title may directly and substantially
arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the
issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded

in a suit for injunction, unless there are
necessary pleadings and appropriate issue
regarding title [either specific, or implied as
noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)].
Where the averments regarding title are
absent in a plaint and where there is no issue
relating to title, the court will not investigate
or examine or render a finding on a question
of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where
there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the
matter involves complicated questions of fact
and law relating to title, the court will relegate
the parties to the remedy by way of
comprehensive suit for declaration of title,
instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings

regarding title, and appropriate issue relating
to title on which parties lead evidence, if the
matter involved is simple and straight-
forward, the court may decide upon the issue

.......21
 21

regarding title, even in a suit for injunction.

But such cases, are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not be
decided in suits for injunction. But persons
having clear title and possession suing for
injunction, should not be driven to the costlier
and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler
vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or
tries to encroach upon his property. The court
should use its discretion carefully to identify
cases where it will inquire into title and cases
where it will refer to plaintiff to a more
comprehensive declaratory suit, depending
upon the facts of the case.”

(10) In Rame Gowda vs. M. Varadappa Naidu

reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 , it is observed that :

"An occupant in settled possession,

is entitled to protect the same and he
cannot he dispossessed without recourse
to law."

It further held that “settled possession” means:-

(i) that the trespasser must be in

actual physical possession of the property
over a sufficiently long period;

(ii) that the possession must be to the

knowledge (either express or implied) of the
owner or without any attempt at concealment
by the trespasser and which contains an
element of animus possidendi. The nature of
possession of the trespasser would, however,
be a matter to be decided on the facts and
circumstances of each case;

(iii) the process of dispossession of the

true owner by the trespasser must be

.......22
 22

complete and final and must be acquiesced to

by the true owner; and

(iv) that one of the usual tests to

determine the quality of settled possession, in
case of culturable land, would be whether or
not the trespasser, after having taken
possession, had grown any crop. If the crop
had been grown by the trespasser, then even
the true owner, has no right to destroy the
crop grown by the trespasser and take
forcible possession.

(11) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria

Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De

Sequeria (dead) through LRs.), AIR 2012 Supreme Court

1727, in para No.86 and 87, observed as follows:

“86. Grant or refusal of an injunction in

a civil suit is the most important stage in the
civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and
direction must be bestowed by the judicial
officers and judges while granting or refusing
injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case
is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction.
Experience has shown that once an injunction
is granted, getting it vacated would become a
nightmare for the Defendant. In order to grant
or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the
judge must carefully examine the entire
pleadings and documents with utmost care
and seriousness.

87. The safe and better course is to

give short notice on injunction application and
pass an appropriate order after hearing both
the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it
becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad
interim injunction, it should be granted for a
specified period, such as, for two weeks. In
those cases, the plaintiff will have no inherent
interest in delaying disposal of injunction

.......23
 23

application after obtaining an ex-parte ad

interim injunction. The Court, in order to
avoid abuse of the process of law may also
record in the injunction order that if the suit is
eventually dismissed, the plaintiff undertakes
to pay restitution, actual or realistic costs.
While passing the order, the Court must take
into consideration the pragmatic realities and
pass proper order for mesne profits. The Court
must take serious endeavour to ensure that
even-handed justice is given to both the
parties”.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.80 in respect of

mandatory injunction, observed as follows :-

“80. It is a settled principle of law tht,

no one can take law in his own hands. Even a
trespasser in settled possession cannot be
dispossessed without recourse of law. It must
be the endeavour of the Court that if a suit for
mandatory inunction is filed, then it is its
bounden duty and obligation to critically
examine the pleadings and documents and
pass an order of injunction while taking
pragmatic realities including prevalent market
rent of similar premises in similar localities in
consideration. The Court's primary concern
has to be to do substantial justice. Even if the
Court in an extraordinary case decides to
grant ex-parte and interim injunction in favour
of the plaintiff who does not have a clear title,
then at least the plaintiff be directed to give
an undertaking that in case the suit is
ultimately dismissed, then he would be
required to pay market rent of the property
from the date when an ad interim injunction
was obtained by him. It is the duty and the
obligation of the Court to at least dispose off
application of grant of injunction as
expeditiously as possible. It is the demand of
equity and justice.”

.......24
 24

OTHER IMPORTANT CITATIONS

(12) 2015 (3) ALL MR 614
(Shri.Suresh Kakodkar & another Vs.
Shri.Vinayak Gopinath Naik Krmali
through L.Rs. & another).

(13) 2015(3) ALL MR 733

(Tejas Natwarlal Parekh Vs.
Deepak Natwarlal Parekh).'

(14) 2015(4) ALL MR 899

(Gulab Mahiboob Bagwan (D) through L.Rs. Vs.
Damu Kashinath Bhosale).

(15) 2015 (2) ALL MR 576

(Shri.Mamaciano Fernades Vs.
St.Anthony's Chapel & Another).

(16) 2014 (6) Mh.L.J. 289

(Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Vs.
Videocon Properties Ltd.).

(17) 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 29

(Lata Sunil Joshi Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others).

(18) 2011 (4) Mh.L.J.137

(Pralhad Jagannath Jawale and others Vs.
Sitabai Chander Nikam and others).

(19) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1542

(State Bank of Patiala Vs.
Vinesh Kumar Bhasin)

(20) AIR 2009 S.C.(Supple.) 2364

(Zenit Mata Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra).

(21) AIR 2004 (1) Supreme Court 115

(Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi).

(22) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3105

(Colgate Palmolive (India) Vs.
Hindustan Lever Limited).

.......25
 25

(23) 1995 (5) Supreme Court Cases 545

(Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs.
Coca Cola Company and others).

(24) (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225

(Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs.
Kartik Das).

(25) 1994 (5) Supreme Court Cases 547

(Premji Ratansey Shah Vs. Union of India)

(26) AIR 1993 Supreme Court 276

(Dalpat Kumar Vs. Pralhad Singh)

(27) AIR 1992 Bombay 23

(Nanasaheb Vs. Dattu and others)

(28) AIR 1989 Bombay 247

(Baban Narayan Landage Vs.
Mahadu Bhikaji Tonchar)

(29) AIR 1958 Supreme Court 79

(Martin Burn Limited Vs. R.N.Banerjee)

Submitted with respects.

sd/-xxx
(D.G.DHAMAL)
SANGLI. Head of the Core Group (Civil),
District Judge-1 and
30-09-2015 Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangli.

.......