Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Refusal Of Interim Injunction If Decided After Hearing All Parties: Karnataka High Court
Mustafa Plumber
10 Oct 2024 2:05 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has said that only an appeal can be filed against an order refusing interim injunction if the order is passed after hearing all the parties to the proceedings and a writ petition challenging the same is not maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Vishwanath Baati.
The petitioner had sought for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order passed by the trial court on the application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and allow his application.
The registry objected to filing of the petition on the ground that a petition challenging an order passed by a Judicial Officer is not permissible, the relief of certiorari as sought cannot be availed and that the impugned order having been passed after hearing both the parties, the remedy available is a miscellaneous first appeal and not a writ petition.
The petitioner relied on Apex court judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava and others, in S.L.P. (C) No.26645/2015 to submit that, insofar as an order of the civil court refusing the grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is concerned, a writ petition under Article 227 would be maintainable.
Firstly the court said, “It is seen that the petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the above petition could not have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastava's case.” It added, no certiorari can be sought for against a Judicial order of a Court.
Finally it said “Refusal of an order of injunction can be subject matter of a proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same would have been so if at an ex-parte stage, the relief of injunction is refused by a Trial court.”
It added, “In the present case, as can be seen from the impugned order, the said order has been passed after service of notice on the defendant and after hearing the plaintiff and defendant as such, after an adjudicatory order had been passed, after hearing all the parties to the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercising supervisory jurisdiction is not maintainable.”
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate Yatnal P G for Petitioner.
HCGP Maya T R for R1 TO R5 & R7.
Advocate Ratna N Shivahogimath For R6.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
Case Title: Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202681 OF 2024
