Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fakkirappa S/o Basavanneppa Tattimani, filed a suit (O.S.No.803/2015) seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of a property. However, the same property was the subject matter of an earlier suit (O.S.No.320/2004) filed by the respondents, which was decreed in their favor. That decree was confirmed by the appellate court in R.A.No.313/2009 and further by the High Court in R.S.A.No.5216/2011. During the pendency of the petitioner's suit, he filed an application (I.A.No.2) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a temporary injunction. The trial court rejected this application on 30.01.2017, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata and amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition, affirming the trial court's order. The court reasoned that since the property rights had already been adjudicated and confirmed up to the second appeal, the petitioner's fresh suit was clearly barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC. Granting a temporary injunction in such a suit would be contrary to law and would encourage abuse of process. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the earlier decree by filing a new suit on the same cause of action.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Abuse of Process of Law - Section 11, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of property that was already decreed in a prior suit (O.S.No.320/2004) which was confirmed in appeal (R.A.No.313/2009) and second appeal (R.S.A.No.5216/2011). The trial court rejected the petitioner's application for temporary injunction (I.A.No.2) on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata and amounted to an abuse of process of law. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-litigate the same issue by filing a fresh suit. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - The court held that when a suit is prima facie barred by res judicata and is an abuse of process, the court cannot grant temporary injunction as there is no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary injunction on the ground of res judicata and abuse of process of law, given that the suit property was already the subject matter of a prior decree confirmed up to the second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 30.01.2017 rejecting I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- abuse of process of law
- temporary injunction
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- Section 11 CPC
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 75
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 Basavanneppa 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 rejection of temporary injunction application in a property suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the trial court order dated 30.01.2017 rejecting I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction in O.S.No.803/2015.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata and amounted to abuse of process of law.
Previous Decisions
The suit property was the subject matter of O.S.No.320/2004 which was decreed in favor of the respondents; 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 and abuse of process of law.
Whether the petitioner's suit is barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application without considering the merits.
Respondents contended that the suit was barred by res judicata as the property rights had already been adjudicated and confirmed up to the second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit that is prima facie barred by res judicata and amounts to an abuse of process of law cannot be the basis for granting temporary injunction, as there is no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. The court must prevent re-litigation of already adjudicated matters.
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.
The trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application for temporary injunction on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata and that the same is an abuse of process of law.
Procedural History
The respondents filed O.S.No.320/2004 which was decreed. The petitioner appealed in R.A.No.313/2009 which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed R.S.A.No.5216/2011 which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.803/2015 seeking mandatory and permanent injunction. In that suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial court on 30.01.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 11, Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
