Courts Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Accept Compensation in Lieu of Injunction

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court, in the case of Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others (2026), set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had substituted decrees for removal of encroachments with an award of monetary compensation to the plaintiffs. The Court held that it is legally impermissible for an Appellate Court to grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings. 

What was the Background of Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff filed two civil suits against the respondents seeking removal of an allegedly encroaching wall and a lintel erected on the wall of his house. 
• The Trial Court decreed both suits, directing removal of the structures and restraining further construction. These decrees were upheld by the first Appellate Court. 
• In second appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the decrees by directing the defendants to pay compensation and treating the disputed wall as a common wall. 
• In 2013, the Supreme Court set aside those judgments for failure to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC and remanded the matters to the High Court. 
• Upon remand, the High Court again set aside the decrees and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the constructions and award compensation to the plaintiffs. 
• Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff approached the Supreme Court once again. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On awarding unprayed relief: The Court held that the High Court erred in compelling the appellant-plaintiffs to accept monetary compensation despite no such relief having been sought at any stage in the pleadings, and in the absence of consent of the legal heirs for such a course. 
• On directing the Executing Court: The Court held that once the decrees in favour of the plaintiff were set aside by the High Court, no executable decree survived, leaving no occasion for the Executing Court to undertake any assessment of the wall's value. 
• On the scope of Order XXI CPC: The Court observed that directing an Executing Court to assess the value of a wall unsupported by any decree finds no basis under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• On remand for fresh consideration: The Court, noting that the High Court's decision in second appeal was not based on merits as no substantial question of law was framed, directed it to reconsider both appeals in accordance with Section 100 CPC and decide the same expeditiously, given that the second appeals date back to 2008. 

What is an Injunction? 

About: 

• An injunction is a preventive remedy granted to a party aggrieved by the acts of another, restraining the wrongdoer from pursuing such acts to prevent further injury, grounded in principles of equity. 

Types of Injunction: 

• Temporary Injunction (Order 39 CPC):  
  • Restrains a party temporarily from doing a specified act. 
  • May be granted at any stage of the suit and remains operative until disposal of the suit or further court order. 
  • Governed by Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX CPC. 
  • In urgent cases, ex-parte temporary injunctions may be granted under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. 
  • Violation attracts attachment of property and/or civil imprisonment up to three months under Rule 2A CPC. 
• Perpetual/Permanent Injunction (Specific Relief Act, 1963):  
  • Granted only by a decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit. 
  • Perpetually prevents the defendant from asserting a right or committing an act contrary to the plaintiff's rights. 
  • Governed by Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; Sub-section (1) permits grant to prevent breach of an obligation existing in the plaintiff's favour, whether express or implied. 

Essentials to Avail Temporary Injunction: 

• The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case in their favour. 
• The plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. 
• The balance of convenience must favour the plaintiff, accounting for the interests of both parties and public interest. 
• The plaintiff must show absence of an adequate alternative remedy; availability of monetary compensation may weigh against grant.