In exceptional cases, a mandatory injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the status quo as of the date of the suit would be altered.

Headnote:
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 6, 39 - INJUNCTION - MANDATORY - JURISDICTION - APPELLATE COURT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - RARE AND EXCEPTIONAL CASE - STATUS QUO - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - SOCIAL JUSTICE - CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - PROTECTION OF TENANTS - PREMISES AND RENT CONTROL ACT - DOWNTRODDEN CLASSES - RULE OF LAW - JUDICIAL ACTIVISM - SOCIAL DEMOCRACY - JUDICIAL OATH - CONSTITUTIONAL GOALS - STRUGGLE BETWEEN HAVE AND HAVE NOTS - LAW AND MUSCLE POWER - LAW ABIDING CITIZENS - URGENCY - EXCEPTIONALITY - RARENESS - APPELLATE JURISDICTION - COST OF LITIGATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a tenant for several years, alleged that the defendants forcibly ejected him from his shop and threw his belongings onto the road. He filed a suit for mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking restoration of possession and placement of his belongings back in the shop. The trial court rejected the application for injunction, but the appellate court reversed the order and granted the injunction.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit was maintainable under both Section 6 and Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, as they are not mutually exclusive. The court also held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the refusal of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The court further held that in exceptional cases, a mandatory injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, and that this was such a case.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable under Section 6 or Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the refusal of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. 3. Whether a mandatory injunction could be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 6 and Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act are not mutually exclusive and that a suit can be filed under both sections. The court interpreted the definition of 'obligation' in Section 2 of the Act broadly to include any breach of legal obligation, and held that the Act should be interpreted in a way that serves the cause of society. 2. The court held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the refusal of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, as the appeal was against the refusal of a mandatory injunction, which is a form of relief that can be granted under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The court held that a mandatory injunction could be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in the present case, as it was a rare and exceptional case where the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in his favor, and he was the sufferer of irreparable loss.
Final Decision: The court rejected the revision petition filed by the defendants and upheld the order of the appellate court granting the mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

1. - Defendant-petitioner have preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order of the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, reversing the order passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, dated 21-1-89 and thereby granting mandatory injunction in favour of the non-petitioner plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff -non-petitioner instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner and submitted that they are tenants for the last number of years and they have been forcibly and without their consent ejected, on 14th January 1989. On 15th January was a holiday and on 16th the suit was instituted. In the suit it was stated that the articles which have been thrown out of their premises are worth lac of rupees and they are lying on the road. It was also submitted that the defendants took the law in their hands. in the suit the prayer was made that the mandatory injunction be issued against the defendants and they be directed to restore the possession of the shop which has been taken away by them forcibly on 14th January 1989. Further prayer was made that the articles which were thrown out of the shop are lying on the road and the plaintiff may be allowed to place them in the premises. They have also prayed that prohibitory injunction be issued against the defendants that in future they should not take the law in hand and should not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the property. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. was also submitted by the plaintiff. In the said application the similar prayer was made. The application was rejected by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 21st January 1989 on the ground that he is having no jurisdiction to restore the position which existed prior to the institution of the suit. Appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the same has been accepted by the appellate court. The appellate court. vide its order under revision directed that till the disposal of the suit, the plaintiff may be allowed to put his articles in the premises and the possession of the premises may be restored and mandatory injunction was issued to this extent.

3. It will not be out of place to mention the case of the defendants, who are the petitioners before this Court. In the trial court they have submitted the reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The case of the defendant-petitioners is that the premises was vacated partly on 13th January 1989 and the goods were packed. The track was to reach there on 14th January 1989 for taking away the articles. In the morning on 14th January 1989, it is said by defendants that, as the truck did not reach, so the plaintiff and his helpers/associates took out the goods out of the premises and placed them on the road. He has further stated that he advised the plaintiff not to put the articles on the road, but the plaintiff said that he has promised to vacate the shop and he will not keep the articles inside the premises. Thus, the defendants case is that the plaintiff voluntarily took out the articles out of the shop inspire of their advice not to do so and placed them on road to honour the promise. It was also stated that the shop was vacated at about 9 a.m. on 14th January and the articles were placed on the road. It was also admitted that till afternoon they could not arrange for the truck and, as such, the plaintiff wanted to put the articles again in the premises and the defendants declined to do so. Defendants submitted that on 14th January 1989, the report was filed against them but it was a false report. Thus, the admitted position is as under:-

(i) Upto 14th morning the plaintiff was in possession of the premises as a tenant and his goods and articles were lying in the premises.

(ii) On 14th the goods and the articles were taken out of the shop and were placed on the road.

(iii) On the very day, i.e. 14th January 1989, plaintiff lodged the complaint at the police station a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1989 Supreme(Raj) 871

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHD.L.Mehta, J.Nazir Ahmed and anr - AppellantVersusAshfaq Ali - RespondentS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 239 of 1989.Decided On : 17-10-1989

In exceptional cases, a mandatory injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the status quo as of the date of the suit would be altered.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, J.
Nazir Ahmed and anr - Appellant
Versus
Ashfaq Ali - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 239 of 1989.
Decided On : 17-10-1989