Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. KUMAR, B.S.PATIL, RATHNAKALA, JJ.
W.P.No.58906/2013 (GMCPC)
SMT.SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, - PETITIONERS
Versus
SMT.KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS - RESPONDENTS
And
W.P.NO.16412/2014 (GMCPC)
SMT.SANNERAMMA - PETITIONERS
Versus
BASAVARAJAIAH - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.58906/2013 (GMCPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.16412/2014 (GMCPC)
Decided on : 05-09-2014
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 151: [N. Kumar, B.S. Patil & Mrs Rathnakala, JJ] Inherent powers - Whether the court in exercise of its inherent powers grant an interim order of injunction? Held, In cases which do not fall under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of temporary injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 151: [N. Kumar, B.S. Patil & Mrs Rathnakala, JJ] Inherent powers - Whether the court in exercise of its inherent powers grant an interim order of injunction? Held, In cases which do not fall under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of temporary injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1(a),(b),(c) & Section 151: [N. Kumar, B.S. Patil & Mrs Rathnakala, JJ] Relative scope - Question whether the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction can maintain an application for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1(c) of C.P.C., 1908 ? Held, (i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application under Order 39, Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision; (ii) Insofar as relief under Order 39,Rule 1(b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39, Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code; (iii) In cases which do not fall under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court. [Suganda Bai vs Sulu Bai & ors., 1975 (1) KLJ 96 and Ramaiah vs Gowdappa, ILR 1989 Kar 962, Overruled].
The Legislature has consciously used the words "any party to the suit" in Rule 1(a) of Order 39, CPC but the same is conspicuously missing in Clauses (b) and (c). However, the words "the defendant threatens" appearing in Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 of Order 39, CPC make it clear that the Court can grant an order of temporary injunction only in favour of the plaintiff because the Legislature has expressly not included the words ’plaintiff threatens’ and also not used the words "any party to the suit" in these clauses.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1(a): [N. Kumar, B.S. Patil & Mrs Rathnakala, JJ] Expression "by any party" - It means both the parties i.e., plaintiff and defendant - Defendant is entitled to maintain an application for grant of temporary injunction. Reason being that after institution of the suit, the plaintiff may act detrimental to the interest of the defendant in the subject matter of the suit by allowing it to be wasted or damaged or alienated and in such an event, the defendant can take recourse to making application under Order 39, Rule 1(a).
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1(a) (b) & (c): [N. Kumar, B.S. Patil & Rathnakala, JJ] Grant of temporary injunction - Whether a defendant can make an application? Held, Yes. In a suit filed by the plaintiff, it is open to the defendant to file an application only under Order 39, Rule 1(a) of CPC seeking temporary injunction and the Court on being satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such injunction, can grant the same in its discretion.
The relief under Order 39, Rule 1 (b) and (c) is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39, Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code. [Suganda Bai vs Sulu Bai, AIR 1975 Kar 137, Overruled].
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
Scope of Section 94(c) and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC:
The court can grant a temporary injunction under Section 94(c) of CPC only if it is prescribed by the rules, specifically Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. Without satisfying these rules, the court cannot grant such relief (!) (!) .
Inherent Powers of the Court:
In cases where the specific provisions of Order 39 do not apply, the court has inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including injunctions, to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. However, this power is limited by the provisions of the CPC and should not conflict with express statutory rules (!) (!) .
Distinction Between Reliefs Available to Plaintiffs and Defendants:
The relief under Order 39, Rule 1(b) and (c) is exclusively available to plaintiffs. Defendants cannot maintain applications under these clauses in a suit initiated by the plaintiff. Instead, they may seek separate relief through a separate suit. The application under Order 39, Rule 1(a) can be filed by either party (!) (!) .
Legal Interpretation of "Any Party" and "Threat":
The language of the rules indicates that applications for temporary injunction under clauses (b) and (c) are only available to the party threatened by the act (e.g., dispossession or damage), typically the plaintiff. The defendant cannot invoke these clauses against the plaintiff in the same suit (!) (!) .
Exercise of Inherent Powers in Absence of Specific Provision:
The court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions in circumstances not explicitly covered by Order 39 if such relief is necessary for justice. Nonetheless, legislative intent and statutory provisions must be respected, and inherent powers should not override specific legal provisions (!) (!) .
Cause of Action and Application for Injunction:
An application for injunction by a defendant based on the same cause of action as the plaintiff is generally not permissible under Order 39. The rules do not explicitly recognize "cause of action" as a basis for such applications, and the law restricts defendants from seeking injunctions against the plaintiff in the same suit on the same cause of action (!) (!) .
Restrictions on Exercise of Inherent Powers:
While the court has inherent jurisdiction, its exercise is constrained by the explicit provisions of the CPC. The court must ensure that such powers are exercised in a manner consistent with legislative intent and not in conflict with specific statutory rules (!) (!) .
Procedural and Jurisdictional Limitations:
The court's power to grant injunctions is subject to procedural rules, and reliance on inherent jurisdiction is only appropriate when the case falls outside the scope of specific provisions. The legislature's intent to restrict or permit certain reliefs guides the court's exercise of discretion (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal framework emphasizes that applications for temporary injunctions are primarily governed by specific rules, and the exercise of inherent powers is limited and should align with legislative intent. Defendants generally cannot seek injunctions under clauses (b) and (c) of Order 39 in the same suit initiated by the plaintiff, and any relief outside these provisions must be carefully justified within the bounds of inherent jurisdiction.
These writ petitions are placed before us by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the request of the Learned Single Judge to refer the following question to a larger Bench for consideration:
“Whether the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction can maintain an application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908?”
2. Before answering the above question, it is useful to briefly refer to the facts giving rise to the reference.
3. W.P.No.58906/2013 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.499/2010, a suit instituted on 02.12.2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Chitradurga for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs also sought interim order of temporary injunction by filing an application U/o XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of CPC but, the court passed an exparte order on 03.12.2010 to maintain status quo, till appearance of the defendants. On service of summons, the defendants appeared on 01.0.2011 and the 3rd defendant, on 09.08.2012, filed I.A. No.11 U/o XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 16.01.2013 dismissed I.A.No.11 filed by the 3rd defendant U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd defendant preferred M.A.No.12/2013 and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitradurga, while allowing the appeal set aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.11 and granted an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs have filed the writ petition.
4. W.P.No.16412/2014, is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.19/2012, a suit filed on 18.06.2012 for a declaration that they are the lawful owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties and for a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also maintained an I.A. for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. On 13.06.2013, the 1st defendant too filed an I.A. U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the suit schedule. The trial Court after hearing the parties, while dismissing the I.A. for temporary injunction filed both by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, directed them to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.7, the 1st defendant preferred M.A.16/2013 before the District Court, Chitradurga. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by order dated 24.01.2014, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the 1st defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1st item of the suit schedule, by allowing I.A. No.7. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs have preferred the writ petition.
5. The parties are referred to as per their original rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Section 94 of CPC r/w Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC confers power on the Civil Court to grant an order of temporary injunction. While the defendant in a suit is conferred with right to seek temporary injunction in a case falling under Clause (a) of Order XXXIX rule 1 of CPC, no such right is conferred on him in the cases falling under Clause (b) and (c) thereof. The civil court no doubt, has inherent powers to pass such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, but the same cannot be exercised when a case is c
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
