Interim mandatory injunction requires a prima facie case, and courts will not disrupt a tax enquiry without clear legal infirmity.

Interim mandatory injunction for return of seized cash and documents was considered in the context of a search under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the income-tax authorities needed the original documents to determine the assessee's tax liability, and that their premature return could frustrate the enquiry and create complications. As the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, the discretionary refusal of temporary injunction was found free from perversity or material legal infirmity. Revisional interference was therefore unwarranted, and the refusal of interim mandatory injunction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim mandatory injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of the seized cash and documents.

Analysis: The seized articles were found during a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the income-tax authorities asserted that the documents were required for determining the tax liability of the assessee. The appellate court held that return of the original documents at that stage could frustrate the tax enquiry and create complications, and that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for interim injunction. The revisional court found no perversity or infirmity in that discretionary order and declined to interfere.

Conclusion: Interim mandatory injunction was not warranted and the refusal of temporary relief was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order declining temporary injunction stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference with refusal of interim injunction is not justified unless the discretionary order is perverse or suffers from a material legal infirmity, and interim relief cannot be granted without a prima facie case.

---