Dismissed¶96

Smt T a Latha v. Sri T D Eshwar

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026MFA/5446/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No.5446 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha J., 07-04-2026): maintainability of a defendant's temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; clause (a) 'any party' versus clauses (b) and (c) confined to plaintiff; inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC discretionary; Full Bench decision Smt. Shakunthalamma v. Smt. Kanthamma, ILR 2014 KAR 6025, relied on; prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury; joint family property; appeal dismissed and trial Court order on I.A.No.5 confirmed.

What did the court decide?

On a plain reading of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, clause (a) applies to 'any party', whereas clauses (b) and (c) specifically deal with the acts of the defendant against the plaintiff, thereby confining relief under those clauses to the plaintiff alone. ¶56

Smt T a Latha Vs Sri T D Eshwar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶96

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant No.1 could have maintained an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, and whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A.No.5.

¶42

Court's answer

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The relief sought by defendant No.1, namely restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her alleged possession, is in substance referable to clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 of Order XXXIX, which are intended to protect the plaintiff against the acts of the defendant; therefore the application filed by the defendant is not maintainable under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) or (c).

¶79

Key takeaways

Even assuming the application does not strictly fall within the framework of Order XXXIX Rule 1 so as to attract the bar, the grant of injunction under Section 151 CPC is purely discretionary and conditional upon the Court being satisfied that such relief is necessary to meet the ends of justice.ratio¶81
The trial Court categorically recorded a finding that defendant No.1 has not established exclusive possession to the properties, which are joint in nature.ratio¶86
The trial Court further found that the three essential ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not satisfied.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC against the trial Court's dismissal of defendant No.1's application (I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.162/2022) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her alleged possession of joint family property. Relying on the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Shakunthalamma v. Smt. Kanthamma, ILR 2014 KAR 6025, the Court held that clause (a) of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC ('any party') is open to both plaintiff and defendant, whereas clauses (b) and (c) are available only to the plaintiff; a defendant's application to restrain the plaintiff's interference with possession falls in substance under clauses (b) and (c) and is therefore not maintainable in the plaintiff's suit, the defendant's remedy being a separate suit (or counter-claim). Injunction under Section 151 CPC being purely discretionary, and the trial Court having found no exclusive possession, prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury, its order called for no interference. Appeal dismissed; order on I.A.No.5 confirmed; trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5446 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. T.A. LATHA W/O LATE SRI T.N. ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, R/O PAIS COMPOUND BESIDE MALNAD E.N.T. HOSPITAL, CHIKMAGALUR CITY.

¶11

&APPELLANT

¶12

(BY MS. DAFNY MONALISA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARSH S. PAREKH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI T.D. ESHWAR S/O SRI T.N. RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, R/O SEETHALA VILAS, THOGARIHANKAL ESTATE, THOGARIHANKAL VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK.

¶16

SRI T.N. RAVI SHANKAR S/O SRI T.B. NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, R/O SEETHALA VILAS, THOGARIHANKAL ESTATE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THOGARIHANKAL VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK.

¶20

&RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANUSHA A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.162/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (8the Trial Court9 for short) in OS No. 162/2022, whereby I.A.No. 5 filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

BRIEF FACTS

¶30

The suit is instituted seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the property is a joint family property. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 5 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said application holding that defendant No. 1 had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant is in lawful possession of her share in the suit schedule property by virtue of partition and succession. It is contended that the Trial Court has erroneously appreciated the material on record and failed

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

to consider the documentary evidence such as partition and RTC extract. It is contended that the appellant has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in her favour and denial of injunction would result in irreparable injury, especially when the property is a source of livelihood.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 contends that the application filed by the defendant No. 1 itself was not maintainable in law as the relief sought falls under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c) CPC, which are available only to the plaintiff. It is submitted that a defendant cannot seek injunction against the plaintiff without filing a counter claim or independent proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shakunthalamma and Others v. Smt. Kanthamma and Others¹ (Shakunthalamma) , wherein it is categorically held that a defendant can maintain an

¶37

1 ILR 2014 KAR 6025

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

application only under Rule 1(a) of Order XXXIX and not under Rule 1(b) or (c). It is further contended that Rule 1(a) of Order XXXIX applies to, <any party=, whereas clause (b) and (c) specifically contemplate acts of the defendant against the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present application is in substance one alleging interference with possession, which squarely falls under clause (c) and the application itself was not maintainable and the Trial Court while exercising its discretion has rightly dismissed the same.

¶41

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is,

¶42

whether defendant No. 1 could have maintained an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, and whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A. No. 5?

¶43

The trial Court observed that the property is a joint family property and defendant No. 1 failed to

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

establish exclusive possession and found that the prima facie case is not made out, balance of convenience is not in favour of defendant No. 1 and no irreparable injury could be caused. Consequently dismissed I.A.No. 5.

¶47

At the outset, the question of maintainability of the application filed by the defendant No. 1 requires to be examined in light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shakunthalamma (supra). Before observing the observations in Shakunthalamma's case, it is necessary to cull out Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC which reads as under :

¶48

< 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. -Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-

¶49

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in a execution of a decree, or

¶50

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,

¶54

the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.=

¶55

A plain reading of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC

¶56

makes it clear that clause (a) applies to <any party= whereas clause (b) and (c) specifically deals with the acts of the defendant against the plaintiff, thereby confining such relief to the plaintiff alone. The Full Bench in Shakuntalamma (supra) has held at para No.33 as under :

¶57

<33. The correct legal position as is clear

¶58

from the statutory provision is as under:

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

(i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision;

¶63

(ii) Insofar as relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit.

¶64

However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code.

¶65

(iii) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court.=

¶66

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

The Full bench observed that,

¶69

(i) Under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) both plaintiff and defendant can maintain an application for temporary injunction.

¶70

(ii) However, relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (b) and (c) is available only to the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot maintain an application seeking such relief in a suit instituted by the plaintiff, irrespective of whether the cause of action arises out of the same transaction or subsequent events.

¶71

(iii) The defendant, if so advised, may seek such relief by way of a separate suit against the plaintiff (or counter claim could have been maintained).

¶72

(iv) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1, the Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC if necessary

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of

¶77

process.

¶78

In the present case the relief sought by the defendant No. 1 is to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with her alleged possession. Such a relief, in substance, is

¶79

one referable to clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 of Order XXXIX, which are intended to protect the plaintiff against the acts of the defendant. Therefore, the application filed by the defendant is not maintainable under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) or (c).

¶80

At the same time it is to be noted that the Full Bench has carved out an exception that where the case does not fall within Order XXXIX Rule 1, the Court may, in appropriate cases, exercise its inherent powers and order under Section 151 CPC.

¶81

In the present case, even assuming that the application does not strictly fall within the framework of Order XXXIX Rule 1 so as to attract the bar, the grant of injunction under Section 151 CPC is purely discretionary

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:18962 MFA No. 5446 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

and conditional upon the Court being satisfied that such relief is necessary to meet the ends of justice. The trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record, has categorically recorded a finding that,

¶86

(i) defendant No. 1 has not established exclusive possession to the properties which are joint in nature.

¶87

(ii) Three of the essential ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not satisfied.

¶88

The Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in declining to grant injunction as it was not satisfied that such an order was necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of Court. On the question of maintainability, for the reasons stated supra, the application is not sustainable under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c). On the question of exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Trial Court has rightly declined

¶89