Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : A.Narayana Pai
KITTAMMA - Appellant
Versus
B.SUBBA RAI - Respondent
Civil Revn. Petn. 619 Of 1958
Decided On : 08/04/1958
Advocates Appeared :
G.K.Govinda Bhat, Mohandas N.Hegde
injunction - jurisdiction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Madras Buildings, Lease and Rent control Act - [Rule 2 of Order 39] - The court discussed the principles governing the grant of perpetual and temporary injunctions, the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act, and the injury within the meaning of Rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the plaintiffs were within their right to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that the order of the special authorities under the Rent Control Act was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for a perpetual injunction and that the injury caused by the execution of an invalid order could be considered an injury within the meaning of Order XXXIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that an order of eviction was without jurisdiction and for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing the order. The lower courts dismissed the petition, and the revision petition was directed against the appellate order of dismissal. The main grounds of attack were that the circumstances of the case disclosed an injury justifying the issue of a temporary injunction, and that the courts had not exercised their discretion properly in refusing the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were within their right to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that the order of the special authorities under the Rent Control Act was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for a perpetual injunction and that the injury caused by the execution of an invalid order could be considered an injury within the meaning of Order XXXIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower courts had failed to exercise the discretion vested in them by law in the matter of granting temporary injunction, and the court remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to maintain the status quo by granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing the eviction order till the final disposal of the application by the trial court.
Issues: The main issues were whether the circumstances of the case disclosed an injury justifying the issue of a temporary injunction, and whether the courts had properly exercised their discretion in refusing the injunction asked for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs were within their right to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that the order of the special authorities under the Rent Control Act was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for a perpetual injunction and that the injury caused by the execution of an invalid order could be considered an injury within the meaning of Order XXXIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower courts had failed to exercise the discretion vested in them by law in the matter of granting temporary injunction, and the court remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to maintain the status quo by granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing the eviction order till the final disposal of the application by the trial court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to maintain the status quo by granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing the eviction order till the final disposal of the application by the trial court. There was no order as to costs in the Revision Petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioners before me have filed Original Suit No. 7/1958 before the Court of the District munsiff of Mangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority (the Principal Subordinate Judge of South Kanara) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/1953 on his file is without jurisdiction, ultra vires and is a nullity, and for an injunction restraining the defendants (respondents before me) from executing the said order and taking possession of the house, door No. 22-4, with its outhouses and appurtenant land without payment of compensation for the said house. Along with the plaint they filed interlocutory application No. 14 of 1936 under Section 151 and order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from executing the aforesaid eviction order and obtaining possession thereunder pending disposal of the suit. An ex parte injunction was granted, but the same was vacated after notice by the order dated 12-2-1958. The petitioners appealed against it in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/1958 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, South Kanara. That appeal was also dismissed. The revision petition is directed against the said appellate order of dismissal.
( 2 ) THE principal grounds of attack set out in the revision petition are: (1) the view of the lower appellate Court that the circumstances of the case do not disclose an injury within the meaning of rule 2 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is wrong; (2) that even otherwise the courts below should have held that they have inherent power to issue injunction apart from Order xxxix Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and (3) that in any event there were substantial questions for investigation in the suit and the courts below have not exercised their discretion properly in refusing the injunction asked for.
( 3 ) IN the arguments before me the contention that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions apart from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure has been abandoned. The learned counsel has confined his arguments to substantiate the contention that the petitioners have made out the existence of such an injury as is contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 39 justifying the issue of a temporary injunction pending the disposal of the suit claiming a permanent injunction. He has also contended that on the erroneous view that the principles of law prevented them from issuing an injunction in this case, the courts below have not at all exercised their discretion vested in them regarding the question whether or not such an injunction should Issue. The learned counsel for the respondents while controverting the suggestion that the case would fall under Rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure has further contended that the trial court in any event has considered the question in the case and has exercised its discretion against the petitioners.
( 4 ) TO understand the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to state a few facts. Since, however, the principal question in controversy between the parties, viz. , the validity or otherwise of the order of eviction against the petitioners has yet to be decided in the suit filed by the petitioners, and it is undesirable to settle or pronounce upon the facts in dispute at this interlocutory stage, I am confining my attention only to such facts as are admitted by the parties or found by the courts or clearly appear from the undisputed records. The 2nd respondent, as the power of attorney agent of the 1st respondent, filed H. R. C. O. P, 191 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Mangalore, against the petitioners before me who are mother and son, under the provisions of the Madras Buildings, Lease and Rent control Act, for eviction. The allegations in the petition are that the 2nd petitioner before me had taken on oral lease a compou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
