Title: Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma & Others
Case No: M.F.A No 2172/2023
Date of Order: 04-08-2023
CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE H.P SANDESH
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that the granting of a temporary injunction as per the regulations stated in Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a discretionary solution. This decision involves a delicate equilibrium between the necessity for interim relief and the continuation of the legal process.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Briefly, the case involves a challenge to an injunction issued by the Trial Court during a pending appeal. The Trial Court’s order restrained the appellants from interfering with the respondents’ property rights and a construction project. The main question was whether the current case’s basis was truly different from a previous one, justifying the injunction.
The appellants claimed the respondents misled the court by suggesting the High Court had denied the injunction, when in fact, it was pending. They argued this concealed facts and the Trial Court shouldn’t have granted the injunction, given the pending appeal.
The defendants countered that the appellants’ earlier case lacked merit and was dismissed, so initiating an appeal doesn’t nullify the respondents’ right to a new lawsuit. They maintained the new lawsuit’s cause of action is distinct.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
In summary, the appellants had previously filed a lawsuit in 2014 to claim ownership of a specific property, based on various events dating back to 2008. In 2022, they returned to court seeking an injunction against the respondents who were allegedly interfering with their construction activities on the same property. Upon careful examination of both lawsuits, the Court determined that the underlying legal reasons for both cases were essentially identical. The appellants were seeking the same relief in both instances – to stop the respondents from interfering with their construction work on the disputed property.
The Court criticized the respondents for not waiting for the ongoing appeal’s resolution and for initiating a new lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. This behavior was seen as unscrupulous and potentially causing conflict between the appeal and the new suit. The Court highlighted that the mere possibility of a different outcome in the appeal did not justify the Trial Court’s decision to grant an injunction. It stressed that the Trial Court should have been more cautious, considering the pending appeal’s authority to reevaluate both factual and legal aspects of the case.
Additionally, the Court noted that when a judgment is being appealed, the original Trial Court decision loses its absolute finality and becomes subject to reevaluation. Consequently, the Bench concluded that the Trial Court’s decision to grant a temporary injunction was mistaken, and thus, the appeal was accepted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
