High Court of Karnataka Sets Aside Memorandum of Facts Recorded by Trial Court in Injunction Suit Due to Premature Inspection. Local Inspection Conducted Before Evidence Recorded is Impermissible Under Order XVIII Rule 18 of CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the proceedings dated 18.07.2022, wherein the Trial Court recorded a memorandum of facts during a local inspection in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner contended that the Trial Court's action was impermissible as it occurred before the recording of evidence and while an application for temporary injunction was pending. The respondents supported the Trial Court's actions, arguing that the memorandum was not subject to challenge unless referenced in an order. The Court analyzed the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for local inspections but emphasizes that such inspections should not precede the recording of evidence. The Court found that the Trial Court had prematurely exercised its power by conducting the inspection and recording facts without first hearing the evidence, which could lead to prejudicial outcomes for the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned memorandum of facts, ruling that it could not serve as a basis for the judgment in the case.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Local Inspection - Premature Conduct of Inspection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVIII Rule 18 - The Trial Court conducted a local inspection and recorded a memorandum of facts before recording evidence, which was deemed premature and erroneous. The Court held that such actions could prejudice the plaintiff's case and thus set aside the memorandum of facts recorded by the Trial Court (Paras 10-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in conducting a local inspection and recording a memorandum of facts before the evidence was recorded in the suit for permanent injunction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings dated 18.07.2022 recording the memorandum of facts in O.S.No.290/2022 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, was set aside. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Local inspection
  • memorandum of facts
  • temporary injunction
  • Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC
  • judicial discretion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (KAR) (09) 3

W.P. No.15209/2022

2026-09-03

Vijaykumar A. Patil

Sri. Guru Prasanna S., Smt. Priyanka S. Angadi, Smt. Rachana R., Sri. Chiranth S.H., Sri. Yeshu Baba Mishra

Sri. H.M. Manu

Sri. Marigowda, Smt. Chikkathayamma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the proceedings of a Trial Court regarding a suit for permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the memorandum of facts recorded by the Trial Court.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that the Trial Court's recording of facts was premature and prejudicial.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court had rejected the application for temporary injunction after conducting a local inspection.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in conducting a local inspection before recording evidence. Whether the memorandum of facts can be challenged prior to an order being passed.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the local inspection was premature and could prejudice the case. The respondents contended that the memorandum could not be challenged unless referenced in an order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that local inspections under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the CPC should not precede the recording of evidence, as this could lead to prejudicial outcomes and undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trial Court has committed a grave error in prematurely exercising the power under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the CPC even before recording the evidence. The memorandum of facts indicates the aspect of the possession over the suit schedule property, which was prematurely recorded and hence, is required to be set aside.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction was pending. The Trial Court conducted a local inspection on 18.07.2022 and recorded a memorandum of facts before rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XVIII Rule 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Pharmacy Company and Directors in Drugs and Cosmetics Act Case — Lack of Sanction Under Section 32A Bars Prosecution. Cognizance Taken Without Valid Sanction from Central Government Under Secti...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of Execution Petition as Time-Barred in Specific Performance Case. Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution Does Not Constitute Merger of Decree and Limitation Period Runs from Date of Trial Court Decree Absent ...