Mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendant to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to a wrongful state of things created by him, or otherwise in fulfillment of his legal obligation.
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a mandatory injunction can be granted.
- There must be an obligation on the part of defendant to perform certain acts the breach of which obligation, must be alleged by the plaintiff.
- Relief must be enforceable by the court.
Prevention of breach of obligation:
55 enables the issuance of an injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation and to compel the performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach. Power to grant mandatory injunction is to be exercised in very exceptional and rare circumstances, subject to the conditions laid down in S.55, which requires the relief can only be granted, where breach of an obligation, is capable to specific performance by the court, where the agreement is not specifically enforceable relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted.
Relief must be enforceable by court:
A mandatory injunction can be granted where the court can enforce it. Where the injunction is not enforceable, the court would not grant it. Thus, a mandatory injunction directing a person to undertake the repairs and work of improvement involving engineering skill and expenses cannot be granted as the court is not capable of enforcing it.
Order to compel performance of acts
55 enables the issuance of an injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation and to compel performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach. A court can grant a mandatory injunction when an unlawful act obstruct the proper enjoyment of the plaintiff’s right of property. The court in such circumstances compel the defendant to performance of certain acts required to do.
The jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction is a discretionary jurisdiction which can be exercised only in a case which falls strictly within the four corners of S.55. In case of grant of mandatory injunction the decision must depend to a very extent on the facts of each particular case. The court would not grant mandatory injunction if the public good secured by its exercise is comparatively much smaller than the loss suffered by the individual
Parties must be heard:
Where High Court appeared to have acted in haste in the issuance of such injunction without affording opportunity of hearing to opposite side, order in question was not sustainable (1994 SCMR 2024)
Mandatory Injunction ought not to be granted as interim relief:
Mandatory injunction cannot be granted by way of interim relief as a grant of such injunction would be tantamount to a grant of final relief which would seriously prejudice the defendant. However, mandatory injunction can be granted in exceptional circumstances, for saving life etc but that can be granted to restore the status quo on the date of filing of suit and not before the same.
Parties to be affected must be impleaded:
The court has essentially to adjudge if plaintiff’s cause has any legal basis and whether the prayer made can lawfully be granted. Court has to see whether effective decree could be passed in the terms prayed for only against the persons or parties arrayed as defendant where such persons were deleted or were not impleaded as co-defendants. Plaintiff could not succeed in his cause even if he had a genuine grievance and a justifiable basis for his claim.
Difference between mandatory and prohibitory Injunction:
A prohibitory injunction is simply an order of court requiring a person to restrain from doing any particular act, whereas in mandatory injunction court not only requires a person to restrain from doing an act, but also compels performance of certain act necessary for putting an end to a wrongful state of things created by him, or otherwise in fulfillment of his legal obligation.