A mandatory injunction can be granted on an interlocutory application only in rare cases and only to restore the status quo, not to establish a new state of things.

1. This application by the University of Bihar through its Registrar, and the Principal, Munshi Singh College, Motihari, under Sec.115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against the order dated the 10th Jan., 1977, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1976 by the Additional District Judge, confirming the order dated the 16th Jan., 1976 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Motihari in Title Suit No 17 of 1974, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 8, 250.00 to Shri Rajendra Singh, plaintiff-opposite party, who is a Demonstrator in the said college towards his salary. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also by its order, as mentioned earlier, has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Civil Revision.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders of the courts below and has urged that the said orders are bad as the Courts below failed to consider that the opposite party had not established a prima facie case nor there was balance of convenience in favour of the opposite party nor he had suffered irreparable injuries which could not have been measured in terms of money. He drew my attention to the provisions under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). In order to substantiate his contention, he has referred to para 7 of the order of the trial court which reads thus :

"It is mentioned in the petition for injunction filed by the plaintiff that he has been paid only Rs. 1450.00 as ad hoc payment since 1-4-1971 uptill now. This fact has not been challenged by the defendants. No doubt, the plaintiff made an endorsement on the letter sent by the Principal to him to the effect that he agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter that "no payment will be made unless University approved his continuance and sanctioned payment." No doubt terms and conditions were accepted by the plaintiff but the Principal has given a certificate to him that he has been working as demonstrator in the department of Chemistry of the said college very sincerely and honestly and in this period he was paid Rs. 1450.00 on ad hoc basis. I find that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and he has got balance of convenience in his favour. The Public Service Commission has made much delay. The University has already recommended the case of plaintiff to the Public Service Commission for concurrence. The Principal of the college being an authority of the college has certified that the plaintiff is working very sincerely and honestly till now. When his services have not been terminated finally and he is working in hope that he will get concurrence from the Bihar Public Service Commission for absorption in permanent cadre, he cannot be debarred from payment of his dues at least on ad hoc basis. Considering the facts and circumstances, I come to a conclusion that this is a fit case in which mandatory temporary injunction should be granted to the plaintiff."

Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the decision in Nandan Pictures Ltd. V/s. Art Pictures Ltd., AIR 1956 Cal 428 wherein it was held that it was in very rare cases that a mandatory injunction was granted on an interlocutory application and instances where such an injunction was granted by means of an ad interim order pending the decision of the application itself was almost unknown. It was further held if a mandatory injunction was granted at all on an interlocutory application, it was granted only to restore the status quo and not granted to establish a new state of things, differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. In my view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is well founded. In the instant case, no order could have been passed in the terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. It appears