Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order passed by the trial court which declined to grant an ex parte interim injunction and instead directed for emergent notice to be issued by way of summons, a Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., held that the petition was not maintainable in view of the available statutory appellate remedy and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.
Facts
In the present case, the petitioner sought an immediate ex parte interim injunction which the trial court declined and instead issued an emergent notice by way of summons. During the pendency of proceedings, the High Court granted an interim stay restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in the subject property until the next date of hearing.
The Registry reported that respondents had refused service. Consequently, they were deemed to have been served.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the said order was arbitrary and illegal.
Issue and Analysis
Considering the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court stated that the same was settled in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695 which clarified that “power to grant an ex parte injunction is derived from Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, since Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC makes an order under this rule appealable, the choice of remedy which lies with the parties is that they can either move the trial court to vacate the order under Order 39 Rule 4 or file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC”.
Further, relying on Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538 and Mohd. Ali v. V. Jaya, (2022) 10 SCC 477, the Court stated that held that a petition under Article 227 is not maintainable where an effective statutory remedy is available.
The Court stated that instead of availing the statutory remedy available to him, the petitioner chose to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Decision
Considering that the petitioner’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was still pending final adjudication, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the trial court to finally adjudicate the application within this period.
Further, the Court ordered the interim stay ordered during the pendency to be further valid for an extended period of 4 weeks.
[Bharath Kumar v. Munivenkatappa, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3003, decided on 7-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: A. Mahesh Chowdhary, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
