Prohibitory Injunction versus Mandatory Injunction

Injunctions come in two directions. A prohibitory injunction is the ordinary, negative form: it tells the defendant not to do, or not to continue, a wrong. A mandatory injunction, under Section 39, is the affirmative form: it tells him to do a positive act, usually to undo a wrong already done and restore the earlier state. This note explains each in its own right, compares them, works through an example, and notes why the mandatory form is granted more cautiously, especially at the interim stage.

Figure: Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions compared, from direction to interim threshold, and negative against affirmative

1. The Prohibitory Injunction in Its Own Right

A prohibitory injunction is negative in direction: it restrains the defendant from doing something, from committing or continuing a wrongful act. It is the ordinary form of injunction, used to stop a threatened or continuing wrong, such as a trespass, a breach of a negative covenant, or an interference with an easement. The court grants it on proof of a right and a threatened or continuing invasion of it, subject to the grounds of refusal in Section 41, and, at the interim stage, on the ordinary prima facie standard. It is comparatively easy to obtain where the right is clear, because it asks the defendant only to leave things alone.

2. The Mandatory Injunction in Its Own Right

A mandatory injunction is affirmative in direction: under Section 39 it compels the performance of certain acts which the court is able to enforce, in order to prevent the breach of an obligation. Its typical use is to undo a completed wrong and restore the status quo ante, for example to direct the demolition of a wall already built in breach of the plaintiff's rights. It is harder to obtain than a prohibitory injunction, because the court must be able to supervise and enforce the positive act, and at the interim stage it is granted only sparingly, on a markedly higher threshold.

3. The Two Compared

4. Negative and Affirmative

5. A Worked Example

Suppose A has a right of way over a strip of B's land, and B begins to build a wall across it. While the wall is still only threatened or half-built, A seeks a prohibitory injunction restraining B from raising it, an ordinary negative order to stop the wrong before it is complete. But suppose B finishes the wall before A can act, so that the right of way is already blocked. A prohibitory injunction is now useless, because the wrong is done; A needs a mandatory injunction under Section 39 directing B to demolish the wall and restore the passage. Because that is a positive act the court must be able to enforce, and, if sought before trial, gives A his final relief in advance, the court will grant it only on the higher Dorab Cawasji Warden standard.

6. Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What is the difference between a prohibitory and a mandatory injunction?
A. A prohibitory injunction restrains the defendant from doing an act (a negative order); a mandatory injunction compels him to do a positive act, usually to undo a wrong already done, under Section 39.

Q. When is each used?
A. A prohibitory injunction stops a threatened or continuing wrong; a mandatory injunction undoes a completed wrong and restores the status quo ante.

Q. Why is a mandatory injunction harder to obtain?
A. Because the court must be able to supervise and enforce the positive act, and, at the interim stage, it gives final relief before trial, so it is granted only on the higher Dorab Cawasji Warden threshold.

Q. Which provision governs a mandatory injunction?
A. Section 39; a prohibitory injunction rests on the general law of injunctions in Sections 37 to 38, subject to the grounds of refusal in Section 41.