Introduction
A mandatory injunction is a special form of relief granted by a civil court under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Through such an order, the court directs a party to perform a specific positive act, rather than merely restraining that party from acting. The primary purpose of a mandatory injunction is to remedy a completed wrong or to restore the position that existed before the wrongful act was committed. Since this remedy compels action and may substantially affect the rights of parties, courts exercise this power with great caution and judicial restraint.
Legal Provision: Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
The statutory basis of mandatory injunctions is found in Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This provision empowers the court to grant a mandatory injunction when it is necessary:
To prevent the breach of an obligation, and
To compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing.
Section 39 makes it clear that the grant of a mandatory injunction is discretionary in nature. The court will resort to this remedy only where a prohibitory injunction or other relief is insufficient to achieve complete justice between the parties.
Meaning, Nature, and Object
A mandatory injunction requires the defendant to take affirmative steps, such as demolishing an unlawful construction, restoring possession, or undoing an act done in violation of a legal duty. The essential object of this remedy is to restore the status quo ante, that is, the state of affairs existing prior to the commission of the wrongful act.
Mandatory injunctions are generally granted in matters involving:
Removal of illegal or unauthorised constructions
Restoration of property or possessory rights
Correction of acts done in breach of statutory, contractual, or legal obligations
Judicial Principles Governing Mandatory Injunctions
The leading authority on mandatory injunctions is the Supreme Court decision in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990). In this case, the Court laid down a strict three-fold test, particularly applicable to interim mandatory injunctions.
These judicial principles act as guiding standards to ensure that mandatory injunctions are granted only in appropriate and deserving cases.
Discretionary and Exceptional Remedy
A mandatory injunction is an equitable, discretionary, and exceptional remedy. While exercising this discretion, courts take into account several factors, including the conduct of the plaintiff, delay or acquiescence, availability of alternative remedies, and the comparative hardship likely to be caused to the defendant. Consequently, no party can claim the grant of a mandatory injunction as a matter of right.
When Mandatory Injunction Is Not Granted
Courts ordinarily refuse to grant a mandatory injunction in situations where such relief would be unjust, unnecessary, inequitable, or incapable of effective enforcement. The remedy is also denied where monetary compensation is adequate or where granting the injunction would create a new state of affairs rather than restore the original one.
Difference between Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
A mandatory injunction commands the performance of a positive act, whereas a prohibitory injunction restrains a party from committing a particular act. Owing to its coercive nature, the conditions for granting a mandatory injunction are more stringent and are applied with greater judicial caution.
Conclusion
A mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a powerful but carefully regulated remedy in Indian civil law. It is granted only when justice demands the undoing of a wrongful act and the restoration of lawful conditions. Courts rely on statutory provisions and settled judicial principles to ensure that this relief is exercised sparingly, fairly, and in furtherance of equity. Owing to its doctrinal and practical importance, the topic holds significant value for LLB examinations and academic study.
