Equitable injunction refused where a party sought to retain possession obtained under a reversed order and defeat restitution.

A party who invoked tenancy jurisdiction, obtained possession under the original order, and then faced reversal with restitution directed cannot secure permanent injunction to preserve that advantage. Even assuming civil suit maintainability and challenge to the tenancy forum's jurisdiction, the Court held that injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy and must be refused where it is sought to defeat restitution and retain the benefit of an earlier order. The plaintiff's attempt to use the civil court to override the reversed order was therefore rejected, and the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the discretionary equitable relief of permanent injunction, even assuming the civil suit was maintainable and even assuming the tenancy authorities' jurisdiction was open to challenge.

Analysis: The plaintiff had himself invoked the tenancy jurisdiction to obtain eviction of the tenant and secured possession under the original order. When that order was reversed in appeal and restitution was directed, the plaintiff sought to retain the advantage obtained through the earlier proceedings by resorting to a civil suit for injunction. The relief sought was intended to defeat the restitution order. In such circumstances, equitable relief could not be granted. The Court also left open the question of civil court jurisdiction and proceeded on the assumption most favourable to the plaintiff, but held that this did not assist him because injunction is a discretionary relief governed by equity and justice.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent injunction; the suit was rightly dismissed and the appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: A party who has invoked a statutory forum and derived benefit under its order cannot, after reversal of that order, obtain equitable injunctive relief to defeat restitution or retain an advantage obtained through the earlier proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Discretionary injunctive relief must be refused where it is sought by a party who obtained possession through a proceeding later reversed and who seeks to use the civil court to defeat the consequent restitution.

---