- (1.) Interim mandatory injunction was issued by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, Bikaner on 20.7.2013 in Civil Misc. Case No. 11/2010 titled as Smt. Indu Singhal vs. Manish Kumar in the following terms: The aforesaid order was upheld in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 177/2013 (92/2013) titled as Manish Kumar vs. Smt. Indu Singhal by Additional District Judge No. 3, Bikaner on 21.11.2013.
(2.) Now, the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Manish Kumar (Defendant in the trial court and appellant in the appellate court). In this petition, the petitioner has argued that interim mandatory injunction should not have been issued against him because at the time of preliminary stage, the final relief sought in the plaint could not have been granted by the courts below. The petitioner has relied upon the following rulings:- 1. Metro Marines vs. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2005 AIR(SC) 1444:- In the case, it was held that the interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in another cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, 1990 AIR(SC) 867.
(3.) In Dorab Cawasji Warden case of Hon'ble Supreme Court , it was held that the relief of interlocutory 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 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, 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.;