Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21437

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
GHOUSE AHAMED – Appellant
Versus
H SUHEL SHEAK – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5985 OF 2025 (CPC)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: UDAY K. S.
For the Respondents: DAYANAND S. PATIL

Proper legal procedures must be followed in addressing injunctions and merits in trial courts.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC - The appellant challenged the order vacating an exparte injunction by asserting sufficient grounds for specific performance of contract - The trial Court vacated the injunction based on insufficient stamping of the agreement under the Amended Karnataka Stamp Act. (Paras 2, 3)

(B) Trial Procedure - Appeals - The parties must address arguments in the trial Court regarding pending I.A.No.1, and the Court is tasked to render a decision based on merits in accordance with law. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance and obtained an exparte injunction, which was later vacated by the trial Court based on a contention about stamping deficiencies.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was disposed of with directions for the trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 on its merits.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the vacating of the injunction was justified based on the argument concerning the inadequacy of the stamp on the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for proper legal procedures in addressing I.A.No.1 and mandated the trial Court's adherence to merits in further proceedings.

Result: Appeal disposed of.

Table of Content
1. challenge of vacated injunction based on stamping issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. trial court to decide on merits for pending applications. (Para 4)
3. appeal concluded with directions for further proceedings. (Para 5 , 6)

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the appeal challenging the order dated 20.06.2025 on I.A.No.1 for vacating the exparte interim order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Arasikere.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and the trial Court has granted an exparte order of temporary injunction on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC on

03.05.2025.

3. On 20.06.2025, the trial Court upon accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the agreement of sale is not sufficiently stamped as per Article 5(3)(2) of Amended Karnataka Stamp Act , the exparte order of temporary injunction is vacated.

4. Now before the trial Court in the suit I.A.No.1 is pending for consideration. Therefore, the parties are directed to address the argument on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and the trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law on its merits.

5. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 01.09.2025 and address the argument at their convenient. The trial Court is directed to pass an appropriate order on I.A.No.1 as per law.

6. With these observations, appeal is disposed of In view of disposal of the appeal, I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration and it is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21437

KARNATAKA HIGH COURTHANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, JGHOUSE AHAMED – AppellantVersusH SUHEL SHEAK – RespondentMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5985 OF 2025 (CPC)

Proper legal procedures must be followed in addressing injunctions and merits in trial courts.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
GHOUSE AHAMED – Appellant
Versus
H SUHEL SHEAK – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5985 OF 2025 (CPC)