18 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction. Clause (b) has obviously, no application to the present case. The present case appears to come within clause (a).
Here is a Tank which has, for years since, been in the exclusive enjoyment of the touchable classes. The manifesto issued over the signatures of the Defendant1 and other also shows that the Untouchable classes were upto now under the impression that they had no right of access to the tank. It thus appears that the tank has been until now in the exclusive enjoyment of the touchable classes. The question now is, whether the ends of justice would be better met by disturbing this old state of things or by allowing it to continue until the rights of the parties have been finally decided.
The principles governing temporary injunctions have been summarised under part 2 of Mulla’s Commentary on the Civil Procedure Code, 8th edition page 892. One of these is that the Court must see that there is a bonafide contention between the parties. About this there appears to me to be very little doubt. The second principle is, “on which side, in the event of success, will lie the balance of inconvenience if the injunction does not issue.” To me it appears that the balance of inconvenience will lie, and lie very heavily, on the side of the Plaintiffs if an injunction is not issued. The point is so clear that I do not think I need labour it at all.
If the Defendants are allowed to enter the tank and thus (according to the religious notions of the Plaintiffs) contaminate the water and render it until for further use, a large section of the population will be put to hardship and inconvenience which will be so severe that only those living in places where there are no copious supply of water, can realise it. On the other hand, the Defendants will not be put to any inconvenience what so ever, if they are asked to forbear from exercising what they consider to be their right, until the first decision to the suit. This course appears to me not only just and equitable, but the only right course under the circumstances in order to maintain the status quo, which, it is imperative to do. Vide the remark appearing at I. L. R. 46, Calcutta, page 1030, it is also contended