High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Property Injunction Case — Rejects Trial Court's Finding of No Prima Facie Case. Court holds that the trial court erred in rejecting an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by misreading the plaint and ignoring the plaintiff's possession and title documents.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 14:38:05

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Nasir Khan, filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), against the order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, in O.S. No. 155/2023, rejecting his application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit, which sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural land. The defendants included legal representatives of one Badebylu Durgappa @ Durgappa, who had died in 1974 leaving behind two wives. The appellant claimed that he had purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of Durgappa and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The trial court rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima facie case, as the plaint allegedly did not disclose the source of title and the plaintiff's possession was disputed. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the trial court had misread the plaint and ignored the documents produced by the plaintiff, which prima facie showed his title and possession. The High Court held that the trial court's finding was perverse and that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property until the disposal of the suit.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima facie case, misreading the plaint and ignoring the plaintiff's possession and title documents. The High Court held that the trial court's finding was perverse and set aside the order, granting injunction in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 5-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Power - Interference with Discretionary Order - Order 43 Rule 1(r), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellate court can interfere with a discretionary order if the trial court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously or has ignored the settled principles of law. The High Court found that the trial court's order was based on a misreading of the plaint and was therefore liable to be set aside. (Paras 8-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima facie case?

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the trial court, and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property until the disposal of the suit.

Law Points

Temporary injunction
Prima facie case
Balance of convenience
Irreparable injury
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Misreading of plaint
Appellate court's power to interfere

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (01) 2

M.F.A. No. 6446/2023 (CPC)

2024-01-12

H.P. Sandesh

Sri D.R. Ravishankar, Senior Counsel for Sri Leelesh Krishna, Advocate (for appellant); Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Sri K.N. Mahabaleshwar Rao, Advocate (for respondents)

Nasir Khan

Haroon Khan and Chand Pasha

Nature of Litigation

Civil miscellaneous first appeal against rejection of temporary injunction application in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

The appellant/plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima facie case.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga) rejected I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S. No. 155/2023 on 07.09.2023.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima facie case?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the trial court misread the plaint and ignored the documents produced, which prima facie showed title and possession. The respondents argued that the plaintiff had no prima facie case as the plaint did not disclose the source of title and possession was disputed.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court's finding that the plaintiff had no prima facie case was based on a misreading of the plaint and ignoring the documents produced. The plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favor, and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. Therefore, the appellate court can interfere with a discretionary order if it is perverse or based on wrong principles.

Judgment Excerpts

The trial court has misread the plaint and also ignored the documents produced by the plaintiff, which prima facie shows his title and possession. The plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favour and irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted.

Procedural History

The appellant filed O.S. No. 155/2023 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. He also filed I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the application on 07.09.2023. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present miscellaneous first appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.