Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.8367/2024. The petitioner, as plaintiff, had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its possession and also filed IA No.3 seeking ex-parte appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit property. The trial court refused to grant ex-parte relief and issued emergent notice. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider the urgency and irreparable loss pleaded, as the defendants were allegedly attempting to demolish structures and trespass. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court had discretion and that the order was not perverse. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the trial court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering the plaintiff's case of urgency and irreparable loss. The court set aside the impugned order to the extent it refused ex-parte relief and directed the trial court to reconsider IA No.3 on its merits, preferably within two weeks. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Interim Relief - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - Appointment of Commissioner - The trial court refused ex-parte appointment of Commissioner despite the plaintiff pleading urgency and risk of irreparable loss due to alleged trespass and demolition by defendants. The High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering the urgency and the balance of convenience, and set aside the order to the extent of refusal of ex-parte relief, directing the trial court to reconsider the application for appointment of Commissioner on merits. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of jurisdiction by the trial court in refusing ex-parte relief without considering the plaintiff's case of urgency and irreparable loss. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief for appointment of a Commissioner without considering the urgency and irreparable loss pleaded by the plaintiff.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed in part. Impugned order dated 29.11.2024 set aside to the extent it refused ex-parte relief. Trial court directed to reconsider IA No.3 on its merits, preferably within two weeks.
Law Points
- Ex-parte interim relief
- Appointment of Commissioner
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Urgency and irreparable loss
- Failure to exercise jurisdiction
