LAWS(MPH)-1971-2-14

RAMA Vs. MANGILAL

Decided On February 09, 1971
RAMA Appellant
V/S
MANGILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the defendants in a suit for permanent injunction from the dissident order of the appellate Court granting a temporary injunction of a mandatory nature in favour of the plaintiff-non-applicant, directing the defendants (applicants here) to break down part of the wall constructed by them around their house so that the cattle coming out of the plaintiff's house may be able to go out through the opening.

(2.) THE facts of the case are comparatively simple and the difference in the factual allegations will be resolved after hearing in the trial Court. At this stage the point for consideration is whether in a situation like this the exceptional course of granting a mandatory injunction to break down part of a structure can be granted, and whether the status quo that is sought to be restored should be the status quo on the date of the intimation of the proceedings or the status quo on an earlier date when according to the plaintiff his encroachment started.

(3.) THE defendants have urged on the basis of case law reported in Durg Transport Go. v. Regional Transport Authority (1965 MPLJ 417=A I R 1965 M P 143 (D. B)) following Nandan Pictures v. Art Picture Ltd. (AIR 1956 Cal. 424.) and also three unreported single Bench rulings of this Court, that a mandatory injunction of a temporary nature should be granted very sparingly, and if granted should be only for the restoration of the status quo as it stood on the date of initiation of the proceedings and not earlier. Even if on the basis of certain English rulings abstracted in Halsbury Volume 21 Article 760 (Third Edn.) a mandatory injunction of a temporary nature can be made for restoring the status quo of a period earlier than the initiation of the proceedings, it can be done only where before the commencement of the suit the defendant has In spite of being cautioned of the possibility of a suit and motion for temporary injunction, tries to overreach the Court by hurrying up so as to forestall the plaintiff.