BABAN NARAYAN LANDGE Vs. MAHADU BHIKAJI TONCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to issue at an interlocutory stage a mandatory injunction as so to restore the status quo anterior to the date of institution of a suit, is a point that falls for determinat on in this civil revision application.

(2.) In my view, answer to this question has to be recorded in the affirmative: Here are my reasons. The subject of temporary injunction is mainly covered by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure. In cases not covered by those provisions, an appropriate temporary injunction can be granted also in exercise of inherrent power of a Court under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. After all Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 are not exhaustive of the circumstances under which interim injunction can be granted. The controversy on that aspect of the matter is set at rest by a majority decision of the Supreme Court in the leading case of (Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal) A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 527. But that apart the language employed in those two rules is clearly wide enough to include an order in the form of a mandatory injunction and admits of no exception with reference to a point of time to which it can be made. Injunctions are a form of equitable relief and they have to be adjusted or moulded in aid of equity and justice to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Jurisdiction is thus undoubted even under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. Even if it cannot be granted under the said rules, section 151 is the source of such jurisdiction. I see no reason to lay down an absolute proposition and forge unnecessary and unjustified fetters on the power of the equity Courts to grant appropriate relief even in a well deserving case and reduce its position only to a willing but helpless spectator-a situation not warranted by our equity jurisprudence.

(3.) Undoubtedly, power to issue mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage is not to be exercised lightly or commonly. Ordering maintenance of status quo as on the date of the suit as an interim measure is rare and rarer still is the order of maintenance of status quo as on the date anterior to the institution of suit. But existence of jurisdiction and its proper exercise are two distinct topics.