Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Injunctions in Property Dispute: Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit vs. Taluka Tokrekoli (2019)

Date of the Judgment: February 25, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 174

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a High Court grant an injunction in favor of a party when that party did not appeal the dismissal of their injunction application by a lower court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a recent civil appeal. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in granting an injunction to the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not challenged the dismissal of their own injunction application by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, examined the matter and set aside the High Court’s order, remanding the case for fresh consideration.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No. 445/2013) filed by respondent No. 1 (Taluka Tokrekoli, earlier Gangamath Sangha) against respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur) and the appellant (Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit) in the Court of Civil Judge, Indi. The suit concerned a declaration and injunction related to a disputed property. Both the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) and defendant No. 2 (appellant) filed applications for injunctions against each other.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed both the injunction applications filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, defendant No. 2 appealed to the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi, who allowed the appeal and granted an injunction in favor of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff then challenged this order in the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi, through a writ petition. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, confirming the injunction granted to defendant No. 2 but also granting an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, despite the plaintiff not appealing the dismissal of their injunction application by the Trial Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the grant of temporary injunctions. Specifically, the Court considered the procedural aspect of whether a party can be granted relief by a higher court when that party did not challenge an adverse order by a lower court.

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states the conditions for grant of temporary injunctions and the procedure for the same.

Arguments

The primary argument in this case revolved around the High Court’s decision to grant an injunction to the plaintiff despite the plaintiff not appealing the dismissal of their own injunction application by the Trial Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the plaintiff’s writ petition in part.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or legal provisions other than the procedural aspects of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court focused on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s decision.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by procedural impropriety and the need to ensure that judicial orders are consistent and follow established legal procedures. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have granted an injunction to the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not appealed the dismissal of their injunction application by the Trial Court. The court also noted that the High Court did not provide any reasons for allowing the writ petition and passed an inconsistent order by granting injunctions to both parties.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order was inconsistent and procedurally incorrect because the High Court granted an injunction to the plaintiff even though the plaintiff had not appealed the dismissal of their injunction application by the Trial Court. The Court also noted that the High Court did not provide any reasons for allowing the writ petition and passed an inconsistent order by granting injunctions to both parties.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have only considered the legality of the order of the Appellate Court which granted injunction to the defendant No. 2. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should not have revived the plaintiff’s injunction application when it was not appealed by the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court stated, “In this view of the matter when the plaintiff’s injunction application stood dismissed by the Trial Court and the same was not carried in appeal at his instance, the same could not have been revived by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court as the High Court neither examined the facts of the case properly nor the legal questions arising in the case, therefore such order is legally unsustainable.”

The Supreme Court also noted, “It is clear from the fact that the High Court allowed the injunction application made by both the parties against each other though the writ petition was filed by the plaintiff against the appellate order, which was passed only on the injunction application filed by defendant No. 2 ( IA No.2) in their favour.”

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of the law. The decision was based on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts should not grant relief to a party that has not challenged an adverse order from a lower court.
• ✓ High Courts must provide clear reasons for their decisions.
• ✓ Orders passed by High Courts should be consistent and not contradictory.
• ✓ This case highlights the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in the judicial process.
• ✓ The decision emphasizes that the scope of a writ petition is limited to the orders that are challenged.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot grant relief to a party in a writ petition when that party has not challenged the adverse order of a lower court. This case reinforces the principle that a writ court cannot revive a claim that was not pursued by a party in the appropriate forum. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of procedural compliance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court erred in granting an injunction to the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not appealed the dismissal of their injunction application by the Trial Court. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the need for consistency in judicial orders.