Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctions against statutory authorities in matters governed by specialized laws, especially where statutory remedies are available.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant - BBMP assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.5783/2023 for permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff instituted a suit for bare injunction alleging that the defendant–Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short “BBMP”) was attempting to demolish the building constructed by him over the suit schedule property. In the plaint, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the property and that he had obtained a sanctioned building plan and licence dated 28.09.2018 permitting construction of a stilt floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor along with terrace floor. It was specifically pleaded that during the last week of March 2023, officials of BBMP interfered with the ongoing construction and threatened demolition. The plaintiff further contended that he had issued a legal notice dated 17.03.2023 protesting such interference and that though the officials initially desisted from further action upon receipt of the notice, they subsequently resumed interference, compelling him to institute the present suit for permanent injunction.

4. Despite service of summons, the defendant–BBMP did not enter appearance or file written statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed issues and proceeded to decree the suit. However, the Trial Court failed to examine whether the subject matter of the dispute was governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short “the KMC Act, 1976”), which is a self-contained code regulating building activity, deviations and demolition proceedings within municipal limits. Without adverting to the statutory mechanism and remedies provided under the KMC Act, 1976, the Trial Court granted a decree of perpetual injunction against a statutory authority in respect of actions ostensibly taken under the KMC Act, 1976. Aggrieved by the said decree, BBMP has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff–respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant–appellant/BBMP. This Court has also taken cognizance of the additional evidence produced by the appellant in I.A. No.2/2025, which comprises: (i) the provisional order passed under Section 321 (1) of the KMC Act, 1976; (ii) the show cause notice issued under Section 321 (2); (iii) the confirmation order under Section 321 (3); (iv) the order passed under Section 462 of the KMC Act, 1976; and (v) other connected documents including the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and the judgment in O.S.No.25171/2021. These documents are stated to be public documents reflecting statutory proceedings initiated against the plaintiff in respect of alleged deviations.

6. Upon a careful examination of the additional evidence placed on record and having heard the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the Trial Court exercised its discretion judiciously in granting a decree of perpetual injunction against BBMP?

(ii) Whether the additional evidence produced by BBMP in the present appeal deserves to be taken on record for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute?

(iii) Whether the additional documents, being orders passed under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976 and other public documents, can be received in evidence without relegating the parties to lead further evidence?

(iv) Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed with imposition of exemplary costs?

(v) What orde