Interlocutory mandatory injunction is permissible to restore status quo against parties taking possession without leave of court.

The Appellants claim title to the "Schedule A" property through a registered Will (2015) executed by Late Subhadra Medhi, which is currently subject to a pending Probate Suit

The Respondent (Defendant No. 2) claims title via a Registered Sale Deed (2022) from Pradip Kumar Das, who purportedly purchased the land from the owner in 2008

The Appellants filed Title Suit No. 505/2023 for declaration and recovery of possession, effectively admitting they were out of possession

During the pendency of the suit, following the arrest of the Respondent’s son in a criminal case related to alleged land forgery, the Appellants took physical possession of the land, claiming it was "unattended"

The Respondent filed Misc. (J) Case No. 852/2025 seeking an injunction. The Trial Court granted a temporary and mandatory injunction directing the Appellants to vacate and remove fixtures

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage to restore status quo ante to the date of the suit.

2. Whether the Appellants’ act of taking possession during the pendency of the suit without leave of the Court constitutes a "wrong" that disentitles them from equitable relief.

3. Whether the grant of injunction was perverse due to the alleged failure to record findings on the three pillars of injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss).

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding temporary injunctions and the specific principles for mandatory injunctions

It relied on Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, which establishes that interlocutory mandatory injunctions should be granted to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status to compel the undoing of illegal acts

The Court further applied the principle from Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, holding that an appellate court should not interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a trial court unless the order is arbitrary or perverse

The Court observed that at the time of filing the suit, the Appellants explicitly prayed for "recovery of possession," which constitutes a judicial admission that the Respondent was in possession

The Appellants' subsequent entry into the land during the pendency of the suit—without the Court's permission—was characterized as an "unauthorized entry" and a "wrong" the party could not take benefit of

The Court found that while the Appellants' title under the Will is yet to be established in the pending Probate Case, the Respondent holds a registered Sale Deed and mutation (which remained valid following the High Court’s intervention in a related writ petition)

Consequently, the Trial Court’s use of mandatory injunction was appropriate to restore the status quo as it existed on the date the suit was instituted, preventing the Appellants from perpetuating a state of possession gained via extra-judicial means

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's direction that the Appellants must "keep their hands off" the property and remove all banners and fixtures. No interference was warranted as the lower court’s discretion was exercised on sound legal principles to prevent the waste or damage of the property