Territorial jurisdiction and adequate alternative remedy bar Section 45 relief for restoration of a water connection

Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act was interpreted as confining the Court's power to directing acts to be done or forborne within its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Relief seeking restoration of a water connection at premises outside those territorial limits was therefore beyond jurisdiction. The text also states that Section 45 relief was barred where an equally beneficial and effective alternative remedy existed, and a suit for mandatory injunction would have secured the same precise relief. On that basis, the requested mandamus-type relief was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act could be made directing a corporation to do an act outside the local limits of the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petitioner had another specific and adequate legal remedy so as to bar relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (i): Whether an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act could be made directing a corporation to do an act outside the local limits of the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 45 confined the Court's power to requiring a specific act to be done or forborne within the local limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The relief sought was restoration of a water connection at premises outside those limits, and the application was therefore one seeking an act to be done outside jurisdiction. The earlier authorities and the Privy Council decision relied upon showed that jurisdiction under Section 45 did not extend to directing performance of acts outside the territorial limits.

Conclusion: The Court had no jurisdiction to grant the mandamus-type relief sought in respect of acts to be done outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had another specific and adequate legal remedy so as to bar relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: The phrase "specific and adequate legal remedy" was construed to mean a remedy which would give the petitioner the precise relief obtainable under Section 45 and which would be equally beneficial, effective and convenient. A suit for mandatory injunction was available and would have secured the very relief sought, namely restoration of the water connection. On that footing, the availability of a suit constituted an adequate alternative remedy and the discretionary relief under Section 45 was not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner did have another specific and adequate legal remedy, so relief under Section 45 was barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed because the relief sought was outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction and, in any event, an equally effective suit for mandatory injunction was available.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief in the nature of mandamus under Section 45 is unavailable where the act sought to be compelled lies outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and it is also barred when the applicant can obtain the same precise relief by an equally efficacious suit.

---