The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders declining an interim injunction under Articles 226/227, holding that lower courts were correct to deny relief given an existing injunction favoring respondents. Petitioner had challenged orders in a civil suit for injunction regarding property trespass.
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 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.59314 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. SRINIVASAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND MIAN GANDHINAGAR KOLAR TOWN-563 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.KESHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL AND J.M.F.C AT KOLAR IN M.A.NO.12/2016 DTD: 2.9.2016 CONSEQUENTLY PASS THE ORDER BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL AND J.M.F.C AT KOLAR ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO.567/2015 DTD: 12.4.2016 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G & E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff wherein the concurrent orders declining to grant interim injunction is under challenge.
leader is misusing his power and at his instigation, the petitioner's name is not mutated to the property records by
3
the concerned municipality. The present suit is instituted on account of trespass by the defendants on 17.08.2015. The present suit is filed to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
4
that there is already interim injunction in favour of the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.599/2015 and therefore, learned Judge was of the view that this is not a fit case to grant interim injunction. The learned Judge having verified the prima facie material also found that the petitioner has commenced with construction without obtaining license from the concerned municipality. Therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to grant interim injunction. Said order is confirmed by the Appellate Court.
respondents/defendants. Perused the concurrent orders under challenge.
to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Having verified the prima facie material, both the Courts were of the view that the matter requires a full-fledged trial and the
5
burden is on the petitioner/plaintiff to establish his lawful possession by producing cogent and clinching evidence. Having referred to the material on record, both the Courts have taken judicial note of the fact that there is interim injunction operating against the present petitioner in O.S.No.599/2015 which is filed by the
respondents/defendants. The concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below.
Courts below and by this Court during the course of the order shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also bring to the notice of this Court that plaintiff has let in evidence and closed his side. The petitioner claims that defendants are dragging on the matter by not leading their ocular evidence in the present case on hand. If such is the case, it is always
6
open for the petitioner/plaintiff to insist and press for appropriate orders if defendants are not willing to lead ocular evidence.
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 when lower courts have declined to grant interim injunction due to existing injunction by respondents.
Whether the prima facie case for injunction is sufficient when the petitioner has commenced construction without a license.
SRI. M. SRINIVASAPPA
SRI T. RAMAMURTHY
SRI T VIJAY KUMAR
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
