Revenue Officials Refusing To Give Effect To Injunction Order On Premise That They Are Not Party To Suit Condemnable, Defies Logic: Karnataka HC

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed this while allowing a petition filed by Suvarna who had questioned an endorsement issued by the Tashildar declining to reflect the interim injunction granted by the competent civil court.

The bench said “Failure to do so would not only amount to willful disobedience of court orders but would also encourage illegal transactions in derogation of the rights of the litigating parties.”

The petitioner had filed a suit for partition and consequential reliefs. The civil court, after considering the application under Order 39 CPC, had granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Despite the subsistence of this injunction, the Tahsildar issued the impugned endorsement stating that since the State was not a party to the civil proceedings, he was not bound to reflect the injunction order in the "other rights" column of the revenue records.

At the outset, the Court noted that the purpose of such an injunction is to prevent the creation of third-party interests and to ensure that the rights of the parties to the suit are preserved pending adjudication. It said an injunction restraining alienation serves to maintain the status quo, preventing unscrupulous parties from frustrating the decree that may ultimately be passed in the suit.

“The civil courts, while exercising their jurisdiction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, grant such reliefs to prevent irreparable injury, multiplicity of proceedings, and the possibility of third parties getting entangled in prolonged litigation due to unlawful alienation. It is, therefore, imperative that revenue authorities acknowledge and implement such orders to uphold the rule of law. Revenue officials declining to give effect to injunction orders on the premise that they are not parties to the suit defies logic and the fundamental principles of judicial process.”

The court further held that the duty of revenue authorities is to ensure compliance with such judicial directions, not to insist upon being arrayed as parties to the suit to fulfill their statutory obligations.

"Revenue records, including the Record of Rights, serve as critical documents reflecting existing legal rights, and the refusal to incorporate injunction orders merely because revenue officials were not party to the proceedings is an abdication of duty.” The argument that revenue authorities must be made parties to a suit before they can act upon an injunction order is wholly untenable and contrary to established legal principles.”

Allowing the petition the court directed the authorities to forthwith incorporate the injunction granted by the civil court in the "other rights" column of the revenue records.

Further it directed the Principal Secretary, who shall issue necessary instructions to all revenue officers to mandatorily reflect "not to alienate" injunction orders granted by civil courts in the "other rights" column of the revenue records to prevent unnecessary litigation and safeguard the integrity of judicial orders.

Appearance: Advocate Arvind N for Petitioner.

HCGP Manjunath K for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

Case Title: Suvarana AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2025