{"id":310324,"date":"2023-12-29T12:00:03","date_gmt":"2023-12-29T06:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310324"},"modified":"2024-01-05T16:12:31","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T10:42:31","slug":"cal-hc-upholds-mandatory-injunction-directs-demolition-in-violation-of-restraint-order-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/29\/cal-hc-upholds-mandatory-injunction-directs-demolition-in-violation-of-restraint-order-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Court has power to grant mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage\u2019; Calcutta High Court directs demolition in violation of injunction order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the trial court’s order to postpone an application for a mandatory injunction to the final hearing of the suit on the ground that the relief sought was in final form and should not be granted at the interlocutory stage, a division bench comprising of Harish Tandon*<\/span> and Madhuresh Prasad, JJ., disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning and emphasised that the court has the power to grant mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage. The Court held that the impugned order was not in line with established legal principles and directed the demolition of the constructed rooms as per the Advocate-Commissioner’s reports.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the plaintiff-appellant filed suit seeking partition and separation of shares in a joint property. An application for a temporary injunction was disposed of on 07-02-2019, directing the maintenance of status quo. Subsequently, an application for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner was granted to investigate the alleged construction by Respondent 1 in violation of the status quo order. The first report by the Advocate-Commissioner reported that the construction is in progress and the second report, which was submitted after 3 months, reported that the construction is complete.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), seeking a mandatory injunction for the demolition of the constructed rooms. The trial court vide order dated 08-10-2020 postponed the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, stating that such relief cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage. The trial court directed the consideration of the application at the final hearing of the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08-10-2020 passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the same.<\/p>\n

Appellant’s Contentions<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that the Advocate-Commissioner’s reports established a violation of the temporary injunction because construction violated the order, as open courtyard had ceremonial significance. Reference was made to legal precedents, including the Division Bench judgment in Indian Cable Company Ltd.<\/span> v. Sumitra Chakraborty<\/span>, 1985 SCC OnLine Cal 31<\/a>, Dorab Cawasji Warden<\/span> v. Coomi Sorab Warden<\/span>, (1990) 2 SCC 117<\/a> and Surjit Singh<\/span> v. Harbans Singh<\/span>, (1995) 6 SCC 50<\/a>, to support the contention that the court has the power to pass a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage.<\/p>\n

Legal Principles<\/p>\n