Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fakkirappa S/o Basasvanneppa Tattimani, filed a suit (O.S.No.803/2015) seeking mandatory and permanent injunctions in respect of a property that was already the subject matter of a prior suit (O.S.No.320/2004) filed by the respondents. The earlier suit was decreed by the trial court, and the decree was confirmed in the petitioner's appeal (R.A.No.313/2009) and further in the petitioner's second appeal (R.S.A.No.5216/2011). In the subsequent suit, the petitioner filed an application (I.A.No.2) for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 30.01.2017 on the ground of res judicata. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the trial court's order was justified as the issue of title and possession had been conclusively decided in the earlier proceedings. The court held that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC applied, and the petitioner could not be granted temporary injunction in respect of the same property. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Section 11 CPC - Temporary Injunction - The petitioner sought temporary injunction in respect of property that was already the subject matter of a prior suit (O.S.No.320/2004) which was decreed and confirmed in appeal (R.A.No.313/2009) and second appeal (R.S.A.No.5216/2011). The trial court rejected the injunction application on the ground of res judicata. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the issue of title and possession had been conclusively decided in the earlier proceedings, and the petitioner could not reagitate the same in a subsequent suit. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the ground of res judicata, given that the suit property was the subject matter of a previously decreed suit which had attained finality.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 30.01.2017 rejecting I.A.No.2 is upheld.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Temporary injunction
- Mandatory injunction
- Permanent injunction
- Civil Procedure Code
- Section 11 CPC
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 29
Writ Petition No.101904/2017 (GM-CPC)
Sri. C N Harlapur (for petitioner), Smt. Meerabai (for R1), Sri. Ahamad Ali J. Rahimansha (for R2)
Fakkirappa S/o Basasvanneppa Tattimani
Allisab S/o Imamsab Badekhannavar and Altaf Ahemed G. Bepari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order rejecting temporary injunction in a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the trial court's order dated 30.01.2017 rejecting I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground of res judicata, as the suit property was already adjudicated in a prior suit which was decreed and confirmed.
Previous Decisions
The prior suit O.S.No.320/2004 was decreed; the decree was confirmed in R.A.No.313/2009 and R.S.A.No.5216/2011.
Issues
Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the temporary injunction application on the ground of res judicata?
Whether the petitioner could maintain a subsequent suit for injunction in respect of the same property after the earlier suit had attained finality?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application.
Respondents contended that the issue was barred by res judicata as the earlier suit had been decreed and confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
The principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC applies when the subject matter of a subsequent suit has already been adjudicated in a prior suit that has attained finality. A temporary injunction cannot be granted in respect of property whose title and possession have been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
In the petitioner’s suit in O.S.No.803/2015, the prayer is for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunctions in respect of the suit property which happens to be the subject matter of the contesting respondents’ O.S.No.320/2004 which has been decreed by the trial Court and the said decree has already been confirmed in the petitioner’s appeal in R.A.No.313/2009 and further that the petitioner’s second appeal against the same in R.S.A. No.5216/2011 is dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.S.No.803/2015 for mandatory and permanent injunction. The trial court rejected I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction on 30.01.2017. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.101904/2017 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 27.03.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 11, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
- Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227
