Short answer. The court must act: if after trial it appears you are entitled to have the act permanently enjoined, the court grants a final injunction perpetually restraining the enjoined party or person, or confirms the preliminary mandatory injunction — this is a distinct step, not an automatic conversion.

What the law says

If after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.

Rule 58, Section 9 — When final injunction granted. Read the full provision →

A determination made after trial, not before

Rule 58, Section 9 addresses what happens after the trial of the action, not at the earlier stage when the preliminary injunction was first granted. It requires the court to determine, based on the evidence actually presented at trial, whether the applicant is entitled to have the complained-of act or acts permanently enjoined. A preliminary injunction, by contrast, rests only on the applicant's showing at the outset of the case that the right to be protected exists and that the acts complained of are violating that right — a provisional judgment made before all the evidence is in.

The final injunction is a separate grant

When that entitlement is established after trial, the court shall grant a final injunction — language indicating this is mandatory once the underlying finding is made, but it remains a distinct judicial act rather than something that happens automatically. The preliminary injunction does not simply continue on its own past judgment; it was always provisional in character, and the final injunction is what perpetually restrains the party or person enjoined going forward, replacing the earlier provisional order with a permanent one.

Confirming, rather than reissuing, a mandatory injunction

Where the earlier order was a preliminary mandatory injunction — one that required performance of an act rather than mere restraint — the section allows the court to handle the final disposition by confirming that mandatory injunction, rather than necessarily issuing a fresh order in different terms. This confirmation still requires the same post-trial finding of entitlement; the court is not relieved of making that determination just because the earlier order compelled an act instead of restraining one. Either way, the losing party's remedy is to challenge that post-trial finding on appeal, not to argue that the original preliminary order should have simply lapsed. And if the trial does not establish entitlement to permanent relief, the preliminary injunction does not survive the judgment either — it falls along with the claim it was protecting.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.