Mandatory injunction is granted at the interim stage–
The granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:-
(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.
(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.” This judgment also makes it clear that when a mandatory injunction is granted at the interim stage much more than a mere prima facie case has to be made out. None of the aforesaid statutory provisions or judgments have either been adverted to or heeded by the impugned judgment.
Set aside the impugned judgment and restore the judgment of the Courts below. The suit filed is a Section 6 suit which is a summary proceeding in itself, the trial Court should endeavour to dispose of the Suit itself within a period of six months from today. ...Tek Singh =VS= Shashi Verma, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 7] ....View Full Judgment

A Court of law can give mandatory injunction if it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing and also to compel performance of the requisite acts to prevent the breach of an obligation by the defendant(s) and to get a relief in a suit, the plaintiff must satisfy the Court by producing evidence that the defendants had an obligation to him which they were breaching. .....Comprehensive Holdings Ltd.=VS=MH Khan Monju, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 198] ....View Full Judgment

Mandatory injunction requiring the performance of some specific act. An injunctive order issued by a court that compels affirmative action by the defendant.
When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may, in its discretion, grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. ….. [Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877]
Mandatory injunction is an order of restraint- to prevent continuance of a mischief. If, in a case where an application for temporary injunction is pending, any party to the case in order to defeat the order of the Court which might be passed on such an application erected a wall with undue haste, the Court had inherent jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction ordering demolition of such a wall. ….. [Abdul Jalil Munshi vs. Abu Bakr Sidddique, (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 42]

Mandatory injunction and status-quo
According to the Appellate Division Rules only one learned Advocate may appear on behalf of any one petitioner.
Since the learned Advocate for the petitioner neither placed nor pressed the Civil Petition for the last 90 minutes in-spite of Hon’ble Judges best endeavours and repeated requests, The Appellate Division has no other alternative but to dismiss the said Civil Petition for leave to appeal as not being pressed. The Appellate Division observed that when the learned counsel insisted for hearing of the contempt petition first, it is again pointed out that since other two matters arose subsequently out of the said very leave petition, if the leave petition is placed first, the Appellate Division would be able to appreciate the entire facts. Moreso, the leave petition having been fixed earlier for hearing today, it would be proper for taking up the leave petition first. The Appellate Di¬vision assured him that all three matters will be taken up for hearing one after the other. The Appellate Division also assured him, responding to his paryer, that Mr. Rafique-ul-Haque and Mr. Moudud Ahmed, the learned Counsel, would be allowed to make their submissions in support of his own, although, according to the Appellate Division Rules only one learned Advocate may appear on behalf of any one petitioner. In this matter, Mr. T.H. Khan, the learned counsel being the senior most counsel, was invited to argue first, which is the norm of this Court for ages. Mr. T. H. Khan, the learned counsel although is seeking adjourment in respect of the Civil Petition on the ground of his health but curiously he is not only ready but insisted for hearing the contempt matter. The Appellate Division requested him time and again since 9:30 in the morning to begin his submissions on the Civil Petition but he refused to place the matter before us. The Appellate Division brought to his notice that the proceedings of the highest Court of the country are struck-up for the last 90 minutes and for such a long time the Court could not resume its judicial works. The Appellate Division also assured him again and again that the Appellate Division shall hear all the matters one after the other and also hear his collegues but to no avail. At this stage, he said that he needs further instructions but failed to explain why he can not place the Civil Petition for consideration, while he was ready to argue the contempt matter, which allegedly arose subsequently out of the said very Civil Petition. On the face of it, his prayers are contradictory. It may be recalled that he was ready for hearing on 10th and it was fixed on that date for hearing to-day. The learned Advocate kept the Appellate Division waiting for 90 minitues without any submissions and as such, the Appellate Division is satisfied that he is not interested to place the Civil Petiton for leave to Appeal for hearing. The Appellate Division is constrained to point out that law will take its own course if he fails to place his petition for leave to appeal, but without any visible response from him. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Appellate Division is satisfied that he is not at all interested to move the Civil Petition. Since the learned Advocate for the petitioner neither placed nor pressed the Civil Petition for the last 90 minutes inspite of Hon’ble Judges best endeavours and repeated requests, The Appellate Division has no other alternative but to dismiss the said Civil Petition for leave to appeal as not being pressed. As such, this Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is dismissed as not being pressed. The connected application for mandatory injunction/status-quo would follow the result of the Civil Petition. It is accordingly rejected. Begum Khaleda Zia -Vs.- The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government Of Bangladesh, Ganobhaban Complex, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (AD) Online 22 ....View Full Judgment