Specific Performance versus Mandatory Injunction

Both specific performance and a mandatory injunction compel a party to do a positive act, so they are easily confused. The difference lies in the source of the duty. Specific performance enforces a contract and its terms; a mandatory injunction enforces an obligation at large, most often to undo a wrong such as a trespass or an encroachment, and can issue even where there was never a contract. This note explains each in its own right, compares them, and works through an example.

Figure: Specific performance and a mandatory injunction compared, and the overlap and the difference between them

1. Specific Performance in Its Own Right

Specific performance enforces a contract. The court, on a valid contract and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, orders the defaulter to perform the very act he agreed to, and enforces that order if he does not. It is the final relief of a suit brought on the contract, and it operates against a party to the contract and those bound under Section 19. What is enforced is always the bargain the parties made.

2. Mandatory Injunction in Its Own Right

A mandatory injunction, under Section 39, 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 wrong already done: to remove a wall raised in breach of the plaintiff's rights, to restore a demolished support, or to reinstate a diverted watercourse, that is, to restore the status quo ante. It enforces an obligation at large, so it can issue even where there was never a contract between the parties, most often to reverse a tort or a trespass. At the interim stage it is granted only sparingly, on a higher threshold.

3. The Two Compared

4. The Overlap and the Difference

5. A Worked Example

Contrast two orders that both make a defendant build or hand something over. In the first, A has contracted to sell and convey a flat to B and refuses to execute the deed; the court decrees specific performance, compelling A to convey the flat, because there is a contract and B was ready and willing. In the second, A has, without any contract with B, built a wall that encroaches on B's land and blocks his right of way; the court grants a mandatory injunction under Section 39 directing A to pull the wall down and restore the passage. Both orders command a positive act, but the first enforces a bargain while the second undoes a trespass, and the second needs no contract at all.

6. Frequently Asked Questions

Q. How is a mandatory injunction different from specific performance?
A. Both compel a positive act, but specific performance enforces a contract, while a mandatory injunction enforces an obligation at large, often to undo a completed wrong such as a trespass.

Q. Can a mandatory injunction issue without a contract?
A. Yes. It enforces an obligation generally, so it can be granted even where there was never a contract, for example to remove an encroachment.

Q. Is a mandatory injunction easy to get at the interim stage?
A. No. An interim mandatory injunction is granted sparingly, on the higher threshold laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden, because it gives final relief before trial.

Q. Which provision governs a mandatory injunction?
A. Section 39, within the law of injunctions in Part III; specific performance is governed by Chapter II.