Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri H. Nagarajappa, was the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent, Sri K.R. Nagendra, in O.S.No.252/2015 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge at Arasikere, Hassan District. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction on the suit property. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found it to be a case of balance of equities and granted a conditional temporary injunction. The order directed the defendant not to put up construction on site No.38, but also included a condition that if the plaintiff did not cooperate in disposal of the suit within six months, the interim order would stand vacated, and if the defendant did not cooperate, the interim order would extend further. The defendant challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the order and found that the trial court had imposed conditions that were beyond the scope of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that while the intention to expedite the trial was laudable, the conditions attached to the injunction were unsustainable as they amounted to an abdication of judicial function. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Conditional Order - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction on the suit property, but attached a condition that the injunction would stand vacated if the plaintiff did not cooperate in disposal of the suit within six months, and would extend if the defendant did not cooperate. The High Court held that such a conditional order is unsustainable as it is beyond the scope of Order 39 CPC and amounts to an abdication of judicial function. The court observed that the trial court cannot impose self-operating conditions that automatically vacate or extend an interim order based on party cooperation. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trial court can impose a condition in an order of temporary injunction that the injunction would stand vacated if the plaintiff does not cooperate in disposal of the suit within six months, and would extend if the defendant does not cooperate.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Arasikere on I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.252/2015, and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the order.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC cannot be granted with self-operating conditions like automatic vacation or extension based on party cooperation
- such conditions are beyond the scope of the Code and amount to abdication of judicial function.
