Case Note & Summary
The appellant, N. Venugopal Reddy, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against an order dated 13.8.2019 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 606 of 2018, whereby his application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. The appellant claimed an easementary right of access over an existing road, which he alleged was the sole means of ingress and egress to his landlocked property. He contended that the respondents, M/s. Ondot Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt. Ltd., were attempting to obstruct this access by constructing a wall or other structures, thereby threatening his right of way. The trial court had dismissed the injunction application, leading to the present appeal. The High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, examined the facts and circumstances, noting that the appellant had made out a prima facie case regarding his easementary right. The court observed that the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant, as the denial of access would render his property landlocked and cause irreparable injury. The court also considered that the respondents had not demonstrated any substantial prejudice if the injunction was granted. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's right of access over the existing road, directing status quo to be maintained pending disposal of the suit. The judgment emphasized the importance of protecting easementary rights, especially when the access is the sole means of ingress and egress.
Headnote
A) Easement Law - Right of Way - Temporary Injunction - Indian Easement Act, 1882, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The appellant claimed an easementary right of access over an existing road as the sole means of ingress and egress to his landlocked property. The trial court rejected the injunction application. The High Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favor, and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. The court directed status quo to be maintained pending disposal of the suit. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court reiterated that for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and likelihood of irreparable injury. The appellant's claim of easementary right and the threat of obstruction by the respondents satisfied these conditions. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his alleged easementary right of access over an existing road, which is claimed to be the sole means of ingress and egress to his landlocked property.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 13.8.2019 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 606/2018 is set aside. The respondents are restrained by way of temporary injunction from interfering with the appellant's right of access over the existing road, and status quo shall be maintained pending disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Easementary right of access
- temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Indian Easement Act
- 1882
