The court found that the plaintiff, though the registered owner of the suit land, sought to restrain an act (construction of public toilets) that had already occurred. The Deputy Registrar's site visit confirmed the toilets were substantially completed. The court held that injunctions are not granted to restrain completed acts; the appropriate remedy would be to pursue the matter at full trial. The court also noted that the defendants' allegations regarding the public utility status of the land and the legality of the plaintiff's title could not be summarily dismissed and required full trial for determination. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed as the status quo could not be reversed by interlocutory orders.