Petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 seeking interference with a civil Court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction. The High Court held that the petitioners must pursue remedies before the civil Court.
The writ petition was disposed of; petitioners must work out remedies before the civil court. 5/2021
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
W.P.No.19567/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
2
BICCODU HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT.
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER:
MR. MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O SRI. B.F. ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KESAGODU POST-573224 BICCODU HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MOINULLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.10.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSIDER THE I.A.NOs.1, 2 AND 3 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.46/2021 AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in
O.S.No.46/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur [for short, 'the civil Court' ], have invoked the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India because the civil Court has not accepted the request for grant of ad interim ex parte injunction against alienation of immovable property described in the plaint schedule. The civil Court has
4
opined that strong grounds are not made out to grant orders dispensing the notice to the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the parties are already at lis in a prior suit in OS No.14/2021, which is also pending before civil Court. It is seen that certain application for injunction is rejected in the said suit. The present suit is because the petitioners contend that the first respondent, taking advantage of his father’s advanced age and ill health, has created certain documents and based on the same is trying to alienate the subject property.
At this stage, this Court is not persuaded to opine that this Court must interfere with the refusal to grant ex parte injunction dispensing with notice. The petitioners must work out their remedies before the civil Court and petitioners' application shall be considered by
5
the civil Court in accordance with law independent of the disposal of this petition.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE
RU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the civil Court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction dispensing with notice.
Whether temporary injunction applications pending in parallel civil suits justify writ jurisdiction under Article 227.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MRS. KHAIRUNNISSA W/O MUNEER AHMED BHISTY D/O B.F. ABDUL LATEEF
MRS. SHAHZAD JAHAN W/O SYED MUKKARRAM AHMED D/O B.F. ABDUL LATEEF
MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN W/O K.A. NAFEES AHMED D/O B.F. ABDUL LATEEF
MRS. KHAMURUNISSA W/O THAQUI AHMED D/O B.F. ABDUL LATEEF
MR. MOHAMMED SHOAIB S/O ABDUL BASEER
MR. B.F. ABDUL LATEEF S/O FAKRUDDIN SAB
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
