The court reiterates that interim mandatory injunctions cannot be granted when the same relief is sought in the main suit without leading compelling evidence.

This Original Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 for setting aside the orders passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur in I.A. No. 2/2025 by granting mandatory injunction in O.S. No. 116/2025, and the same was upheld by the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in C.M.A. No. 9/2025.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants for granting prohibitory injunction, fixation of boundary and injunction to remove the obstruction allegedly made by the petitioner/defendant in the B schedule property which is said to be purchased by the plaintiff’s husband from the father of the defendant in the year 1986. After appearance of the defendant, the plaintiff filed I.A. for mandatory injunction for restoration of the original position of the B-schedule pathway for approaching the A-schedule property of the plaintiff. The same was allowed by the trial Court vide I.A. No. 2/2025 by directing the petitioners/defendants to remove the obstruction or concrete pole erected in the B-schedule property. The same was challenged by the petitioners/defendants by filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Sub-Court, Irinjalakuda, which came to be dismissed, and hence the petitioners/defendants are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants strenuously contended that the main relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit as well as in the interim relief sought in the interlocutory applications are one and the same regarding the mandatory injunction. The Court cannot grant mandatory injunction for restoring the original position without going to the merits of the case and leading evidence. The relief sought in the main suit and the interim relief sought in the mandatory injunction are one and the same. Therefore, it is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court of Kerala, hence prayed for setting aside the same.

5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that as on the date of filing the suit, the petitioner already erected this concrete wall or concrete compound on the B schedule property and until the suit is finally adjudicated, the same shall not be directed to be removed by way of mandatory injunction. But the trial Court granted mandatory injunction in the interlocutory application, which is against the law. Hence prayed for setting aside the same.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by both the Courts below and contended that the plaintiff is having a prima facie case in her favour. Plaintiff’s husband has purchased the property from the very father of the defendants in the year 1986 for widening the pathway. Previously, the pathway was very narrow at the time of settlement in the year 1960. Subsequently, in 1986, the plaintiff’s husband purchased the remaining portion of the property from the very father of the defendants measuring 6 dhennu length and 3 kol width, adjacent to the east side of the common pathway. The plaintiff’s is running a poultry farm in the A schedule property for more than six years and for truck access, ingress and egress, the plaintiff has been using the said pathway in the B schedule property since 1986, for more than 34 years, this pathway has been