The court emphasized that granting an interim mandatory injunction requires a higher standard of proof, focusing on the plaintiff's strong case and the necessity to prevent irreparable harm.

JUDGMENT

The order granting an interim mandatory injunction by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is under challenge in this proceedings. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit.

2. The plaintiff instituted the Original Suit No.197/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.1 from blocking a way.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against defendant No.1. In the application, the Trial Court directed both parties to maintain status-quo as reported by the Advocate Commissioner.

4. The plaintiff filed I.A No.510/2018 alleging that in violation of the order of the temporary injunction, defendant No.1 blocked the way by putting an old cycle on the steps that led to plaint 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant No.1 locked the gate that existed prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for an interim mandatory injunction seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to remove the obstructions on the way.

5. Defendant No.1 resisted the application, denying the averments in the application seeking interim mandatory injunction.

6. The Trial Court issued a Commission. The Commissioner initially visited the property and submitted a report. The Commissioner reported that defendant No.1 placed an old cycle on the steps leading to the plaint 'A' schedule property and locked the gate in such a way as to prevent the user of it. Relying on the report of the Commissioner, the Trial Court allowed the application seeking interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to keep the gate open between 6.00 a.m and 10.00 p.m.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.

8. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff has no right over the way. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the test to be applied for granting interim mandatory injunction.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court granted the interim mandatory injunction on satisfaction that the defendants violated the order of injunction.

10. In the first report, the Commissioner stated that there are steps joining plaint 'B' schedule property and plaint 'A' schedule property, indicating signs of a way connecting 'B' schedule property with the property of the plaintiff. The Commissioner also reported the existence of a gate at the entrance of 'B' schedule way. In the subsequent report, the Commissioner stated that an old cycle was placed on the way as an obstruction and that the gate was seen locked. The Commissioner further reported that he had entered into the plaint schedule property through this gate during his first visit. He further stated that by way of locking the gate, defendant No.1 obstructed the user of plaint 'B' schedule way by the plaintiff.

11. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Trial Court granting interim mandatory injunction is justified. Grant of interim mandatory relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court in the sense much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. The power to grant interim mandatory injunction is a rare power.

12. In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden [(1990) 2 SCC 117], the Supreme Court considered the scope of the grant of interim mandatory injunction in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the judgment, which is extracted below:

“16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully ta