A temporary mandatory injunction can be granted only in cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and is likely to cause extreme hardship to the plaintiff.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred TO against an order passed on 10th October, 1995, by which Shri Lal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant s application Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of temporary injunction directing respondent No. 1 to vacate the rear unit of House No. 32, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and farther restraining her from entering the said premises.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent No. 1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by virtue of an order passed by the Supreme Court in I. A. No. 1 of 1993 in Civil Appeal No. 424 of 1987, decided on 19th November, 1993, reported as V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994) 1 S. C. C. 337. After the marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce, the appellant on 8th May, 1995 filed a suit in the court of the District Judge, Delhi against respondent No. 1 and Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. , respondent No. 2, claiming a decree for mandatory injunction directing respondent No. 1 to forthwith vacate the premises in question being her formal matrimonial home and a permanent prohibitor injunction restraining her from entering the same. In addition the appellant has prayed for a decree for Rs. 2,60,000. 00 as damages against defendants jointly and severally and a decree for declaration that payments made by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 by way of rent allowance be declared as illegal and the appellant be held entitled and be paid the said amount of rent from 23rd November, 1993 onwards with a decree for future damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 per month from 1st April, 1995 till respondent No. 1 vacates the formal matrimonial home.

( 3 ) ALONG with the suit an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved by the appellant praying for granting temporary injunction directing respondent No. 1 to forthwith vacate the premises and to restrain her from entering the same and directing respondent No. 2 to pay to the appellant monthly allowance in lieu of accommodation being occupied by respondent No. 1. The said application on contest was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. This said order is under challenge in this appeal,

( 4 ) THE appellant in the suit alleged that on marriage being dissolved, right of respondent No. 1 to reside in the formal matrimonial home had come to an end and despite notice dated 30th November, 1993, she has not vacated the same. Respondent No. 1 had also applied for review of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 23rd November, 1993 contending that pursuant to the judgment she had received a letter for vacating the matrimonial premises and thus she was liable to be thrown out of the matrimonial home and rendered homeless causing grave injustice to her and children. The said review petition was also dismissed and thus in view of her admission made in the review petition, respondent No. 1 was estopped from contending that she was not liable to vacate the formal matrimonial home after divorce. Her continuance in the premises was without any authority of law. The appellant had been residing in the matrimonial home and is in exclusive possession thereof. A civil suit (Suit No. 42/83) for specific performance of an agreement entitling him to the ownership thereof was pending in the High Court of Delhi, to which respondent No. 1 was not a party. Appellant had suffered and was suffering irreparable mental and physical agony and hardship an account of respondent No. 1 not vacating the formal matrimonial home. Her presence was causing grave mental pain and suffering to him. The appellant had been trying to prevent respondent No. 1 from entering her formal matrimonial home but of no effect. In the plaint, it is also alleged that respondent No. 1 is entitled to official accommodation as per her entitlement and she can also reside there in one of the I. T. D. C. Hostles. Respondent No. 2 ha