The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of interim injunctions by lower courts. The bench held that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion to deny relief without final evidence, quoting Larger Bench principles of clean hands and balance of convenience.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.108927 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
VADAGAON, DIST: BELGAVI.
TAL AND DIST: BELGAVI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R2, R3 AND R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE ISSUED TO R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA.NO.29 AND 31 FILED UNDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W. 151 OF CPC., RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELAGAVI IN OS.NO.608/2010 DATED 03.11.2014 CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (MA) NO.62/14, 63/14 AND 76/14 DATED 24.09.2016, PASSED BY THE 1st ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present petition is filed by defendant Nos.7 to 24
seeking the following reliefs:
O.S.No.608/2010 seeking the following reliefs:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
No.7 and also by other defendants. I.A.No.29 was filed by defendant Nos.7 to 25 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 for an adinterim injunction to restrain the plaintiff from alienating the suit property. The said application was objected by the plaintiff. I.A.No.30 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2
R/w Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff to restrain defendant Nos.7 to 25 for interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property.
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
“26. It is true that the plaintiff has sought the relief of ad- interim injunction against the defendants in I.A.No.30 and sought ad-interim relief in respect of her actual physical possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property. It is to be noted that this contention of the plaintiff is clearly opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants No.7 to 25 by filing IA.No.31 and IA.No.29 on the ground that thus plaintiff is attempting to sell the portion of the suit property and in this regard, these defendants have issued a public notion in paper publications and also submitted the memorandum to the Deputy commissioner. It is to be noted that defendants No.7 to 25 have alleged that plaintiff is trying to alienate the suit property to other parties and interfering the actual physical possession of these defendants in respect of suit property. It is true that these defendants No.7 to 25 have not sought any counter claim in respect of the relief sought in the present suit and other allegations, are not incidental to the cause of action as pleaded in the present suit At the same time, this court has already observed while discussing on point Nos. 1 and 2 that this court is not suppose to put forth its opinion regarding possession over the suit property unless and until the evidence on both side is concluded. The allegations made against one another will be considered at the time of trial as now the case is posted for evidence of the defendants. Under such circumstances, without having proof regarding the actual physical possession over the suit property, both these plaintiff and defendants No. 7 to 25 can not claim the reliefs of ad-interim injunction against one another by claiming that they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if no interim injunction is granted in their, favour. Both the parties can go with the trial and get the speedy disposal of the present suit and thereby their rights can be determined as early as possible. By considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that at this stage, both parties have failed to prove that they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship if no interim
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
injunction is granted as prayed in I.A. No. 29 to 31. Hence, I answer these two points in the Negative .
28. It is relevant to note that grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief of which is to be exercised by the court on well settled judicial principles. While considering the said aspect, this court in also suppose to look into the conduct of the parties, as granting of injunction is an equitable relief. It is to be noted that it is the contention of the plaintiff that she is in actual physical possession of the suit property by the virtue of a gift deed and only after execution of the gift deed in her favour the plaintiff has come up with the present suit on the ground that these defendants are causing interference in her possession and are trying to put up buildings illegally. On the other hand, these defendants have come up with their contention that they have purchased many plots the suit property and they are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing R.S. No. 566/5 since, the year 1999 and now they have come up with the L.A.s without claiming any counterclaim regarding their alleged rights over the suit property These things clearly show that parties i.e., plaintiff and the defendants No.7 to 25 are not approaching the court with clean hands. This court is not suppose to put forth its opinion regarding possession over the suit property as there is a need to go for trial in respect of said aspect. It is to be noted that this court has already observed regarding prima-face possession and that of the aspect of balance of convenience while discussing on point No.1 and 2. These things clearly dispute the contention of the plaintiff as well as the defendants No.7 to 25 in seeking the relief of temporary injunction against one another. That without going for trial, this plaintiff is seeking ad-interim injunction against the defendants No.7 to 25 and these defendants No.7 to 25 are seeking ad-interim injunction against the plaintiff without leading their evidence. This conduct of both parties clearly disentitle them in seeking the relief of adinterim injunction against one another. By keeping in view of all these things, both parties have not satisfied the essential requirements of granting ad-interim injunction as prayed in I.A.No.29 and 31.”
(emphasis supplied)
03.11.2014 dismissed I.A.Nos.29 and 30. Being aggrieved M.A.Nos.62, 63 and 76/2014 was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide order dated 24.09.2016 dismissed the M.A.Nos.62 and 63/2014 and allowed M.A.No.76/2014 and passed the following order:
Miscellaneous Appeal No.62/2014 and Misc. Appeal No.63/2014 filed by the appellant/defendants No.7 to 25 U/o. 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C., are hereby dismissed with costs.
The order passed by the trial court on I.A.No.29 and 31 are confirmed.
The order of status quo granted by this court on 11/11/2014 in both appeals is vacated.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.76/2014 filed by the appellant/plaintiff U/o. 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C., is hereby allowed with costs.
I.A.No.30 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.608/2010 is allowed with costs.
The defendants 7 to 25, their agents or any one claiming through them are hereby restrained by the order of Temporary injunction from causing any illegal interference and obstruction of plaintiff’s possession and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
enjoyment over the property bearing R.S.No.566/5 measuring 2 acres 31 gunthas bounded by:
To the East : By Sy.No.566/1. To the West : By Sy.No.566/4. To the North : By Sy.No.566/2 and 566/3. To the South : By remaining land out of Sy.No.566/5.
For a period of two months from the date of this order, within which the parties shall co-operate for disposal of entire suit on merits.
Send the copy of this judgment to the trial court.
The original of the judgment shall be kept in M.A.No.76/2014 and the copies of which be kept in M.A.No.62/2014 and M.A.No.63/2014.”
Appellate Court allowing of I.A.No.30 the defendant Nos.7 to 25 have filed the present appeal.
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
and exercised its discretion in refusing the interim relief sought for by both the parties.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16464 WP No. 108927 of 2016
observing that the Trial Court shall compete the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
SSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the exercised discretion of the lower courts in refusing interim injunctions.
Whether the trial court must conclude the trial of the suit expeditiously after the dismissal of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Krishna Laxman Hosamani
Shri Parusharam Jivaji Sapare
Shri Hanumant Jivaji Sapare
Shri Kiran Chandrakant Chillal
Shri Deepak Shantaram Chillal
Smt. Shubhangi Diggambar Kowadkar
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
