Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28926
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J
Subramanyachari – Appellant
Versus
B. Balasundaram Reddy – Respondent
WP No. 17004 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandrakanth R Goulay
For the Respondents: Madan N., P.N. Nanja Reddy
In a dispute over temporary injunction, where both parties consent to maintaining the status quo, and prior interim protection is already in effect, the court may dispose of the writ petition by directing parties to maintain the status quo until the final disposal of the suit proceedings.
Headnote:The proceedings arise from a property dispute where a suit for permanent injunction was filed, and an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court. The matter reached the High Court challenging these concurrent orders of injunction. The primary issue for determination was whether the existing temporary injunction orders should be continued. The court, noting that stay orders were already in force and considering the consent of the parties to maintain the status quo, determined that the interests of justice would be best served by a neutral status quo directive rather than a determination on the merits of the interlocutory orders. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to both parties to maintain the status quo regarding possession of the suit schedule property until the final disposal of the suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the background and procedural history of the challenge against trial and appellate court orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. disposal of an injunction appeal by mutual agreement to maintain the status quo pending final suit trial. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORD; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.I ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSKOTE IN O.S.NO.25/2021 VIDE ANNX-E AND CONFIRMED BY THE PRINCIPAL SR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN MA NO.57/2021 BY THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.07.2021 passed in OS No.25 of 2021 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, and order dated 16.08.2021 passed in MA No.57 of 2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').
2. Heard Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Madan N., learned counsel for Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.
3. The respondent herein has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), which came to be allowed. The said order was assailed by the defendant in MA No.57 of 2021. The Appellate Court, vide Order dated 16.08.2021 dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the Trial Court passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
4. It is to be noticed that this Court, vide order dated 08.10.2021 has stayed both the orders and the said interim order is still in force. The learned counsels appearing for the both sides fairly submit that, if the parties maintain status quo with regard to the possession till disposal of the suit, ends of justice would be met. Considering the said submission and taking note of the fact that the order of granting temporary injunction of the Trial Court and which was affirmed by the Appellate Court are stayed before this Court from 08.10.2021 onwards till this day, I am of the view that instead of recording the finding with regard to the correctness of the order, the ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.
5. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and correctness of the orders challenged before it.
