Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
AMBIKA KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
KARTHIKA MUTHUKRISHNAN – Respondent
UNNUMBERED OPC 553/2013
Jurisdiction - Injunction - SARFESI Act 2002 - Section 14 - The court elaborated on the enforceability of injunction orders and the remedies available under order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for violation, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of civil and constitutional remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief to prevent actions taken by respondents in violation of a previous court order that restrained them from alienating property. Allegations arose that a respondent was illegally taking possession under the SARFESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's relief could not be granted as the proper remedy for violation of the injunction lay in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, not the original petition. It affirmed that rightful legal channels exist.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek an order against respondents for actions taken contrary to an existing injunction order when specific remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure were available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the existing legal procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure provided adequate remedies for the petitioner regarding violation of injunction, and actions under the SARFESI Act should be challenged separately as per constitutional provisions.
Final Decision: The court upheld the objection to maintainability, rejecting the unnumbered original petition.
J U D G M E N T
The registry has raised an objection to the maintainability of the original petition wherein the relief sought for by the petitioner is for an order directing respondents 3 and 4 not to take any action in violation of Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is an order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Court of First Additional Sub Judge of Thiruvananthapuram on I.A.No.1007 of 2013 in O.S.No.278 of 2013. By the said order, respondents 1 to 3 herein were restrained from alienating the plaint schedule property in O.S. No.278 of 2013 or from inducting strangers therein. The averment in the instant unnumbered original petition is that after Ext.P3 order of injunction was passed, the third respondent deliberately proceed to take possession of the building of the petitioner acting hand in glove with respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the third respondent has taken steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) and has also applied for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose Z.O.P.(Civil) No.553 of 2013 2 of taking possession of the property.
2. In my opinion, an order of the kind prayed for the petitioner can not be granted. If Ext.P3 order is still in force and in violation thereof the parties bound by it violate it, the remedy of the petitioner lies in instituting appropriate proceedings under order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petitioner is aggrieved by steps taken by the third respondent bank under the SARFESI Act, his remedy lies in moving this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I accordingly uphold the objection raised by the registry and reject the unnumbered original petition.
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
