Mandatory injunction

2023 PLD 11 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Mandatory injunctionInterim reliefObject, purpose and scopeInterlocutory order may either be of prohibitory nature or mandatory in characterSuch discretion as being exercised should reveal exercise of some sound principles and standards as already recognized

Relief of mandatory injunction is a discretionary relief and can be granted in the circumstances specified under Specific Relief Act, 1877

Standards of passing mandatory interlocutory orders, and that too ex-parte, have now been settled conclusively

If a Court is called upon to grant any relief on any interlocutory application, which when granted would mean granting substantially the relief claimed in the suit and/or to restore status as existed on the day suit was filed, the Court ought to be very careful and circumspect in the matter of granting any such prayer

No absolute bar in granting such relief and Court should not lay down absolute proposition when such are not necessary and consequently forge fetters for itself but such exercise of discretion should be limited to rare and exceptional cases

Such orders of injunctions or for that matter any interlocutory order of mandatory nature are passed where rights sought to be protected are clear and/or based on comprehensive undisputed report and not where it is doubtful, cloudy or needed trial

Injunction cannot be granted to establish a new state of things differing from state of things which existed on the date when proceedings were instituted and picture for undisputed possession of plaintiffs of suit was not at all clear when suit was filed

Interlocutory mandatory injunction can only under those compelling circumstances be granted in case Court is satisfied that matter is urgent one and an immediate assistance is needed to prevent irreparable injury being done to legal or equitable rights of a claimant

Where passing of mandatory injunction is inevitable leading principle, which may be conducive for the situation, is to limit exercise of discretion to the extent it is needed

Leading rationale which ought, in normal circumstances, to be guide of Court and to regulate its discretion in granting injunction is that only such restraint should be imposed or such powers be exercised as may suffice to stop the mischief complained of

If restraining order of ex-parte nature is sufficient to handle given situation then it is not conceivable that maximum cap of discretion be utilized, though it is within Court's discretion.

2022 PLD 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 54 & 55Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79Suit by person dispossessed of immovable propertyPerpetual injunction when grantedMandatory injunctionProof of execution of document required by law to be attestedSecundum allegata et probataConsensus ad idemScope

Plaintiff filed suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants claiming therein that he had purchased the disputed plot from the predecessor of defendants but the defendants took over illegal possession of the plot

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had failed to plead about the existence or execution of the alleged sale deed in his plaint

Plaintiff could not establish consensus ad idem having failed to prove the execution of first and second page because these pages were not signed by the parties

Neither the name nor signature of second marginal witness was available on the disputed sale deed

Plaintiff had produced his brother while portraying him as scribe of sale deed but the deposition of a scribe could not be equated with deposition of an attesting witness

Courts below had fell in error by not properly appreciating the questions of facts and law and ignored the material piece of evidence on record while passing the impugned judgments and decrees

Impugned judgments were set aside and the second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 CLD 1142 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 49Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Interim injunctionMandatory injunctionOpportunity of hearingScopeAppellant was restrained from marketing its products on the issue of resemblance in packing with that of respondent'sValidity

Appellant was deprived of marketing its products, which was duly registered; without there being any justification in that behalf

Mandatory injunction could not be granted without hearing of other side because it operated against certain legal rights or obligations

Departure could only be made if such right was being used to delay/ frustrate the proceedings or exceptional circumstances so justified which must include irreparable loss

Impugned order was unjustified and void ab initio, as such the same was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the application for injunction afresh.

2011 CLC 1086 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 55Mandatory injunctionScope

Section 55, Specific Relief Act, 1877 provides as to when to prevent the breach of an obligation and to compel performances of the requisite act

Principles.