Karnataka High Court favors temporary injunction by appellate court in absence of clear signal

Karnataka High Court favors temporary injunction by appellate court in absence of clear signal

It is to preserve the status and nature of the property until the dispute is decided on merits

The Karnataka High Court has said that if the trial court has not given a clear finding on the possession of suit property, the appellate court should grant an order of temporary injunction. This is if it was in operation till the disposal of the suit before the trial court.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "There is no hard and fast rule that the appellate court should not refer to the evidence of the witnesses and the findings given by the trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. If the appellate court feels the evidence has to be looked into, it should be for the limited purpose of forming an opinion regarding the nature or status of the property."

The bench added, "If a suit for bare injunction is dismissed holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, that finding has a significant effect, de-hors that finding, the appellate court cannot grant an order of temporary injunction in favor of the appellant. But in other types of suits, the decision of whether an order of temporary injunction is to be granted or not during the pendency of the appeal must be taken based on the circumstances. If the trial court has not given a clear finding as regards the possession, it is better to grant an order of temporary injunction if it was in operation till the disposal of the suit."

The court had observed the above while dismissing an appeal filed by Shadakshari C.L. and others questioning the December 2021 order passed by the appellate court. The court had allowed the application filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking a temporary injunction against the appellants pending disposal of the appeal filed by them challenging the trial court order which dismissed their title suit.

While ruling that the appellate court must find an exceptional circumstance, the bench stated, "The appellate court need not decide such an application in the manner the appellate court decides the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. To grant an injunction or not lies within the prudence of the appellate court. The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to preserve the status and nature of the property until the dispute is decided on merits."

The bench further held, "In this case, it is not in dispute that the order of temporary injunction was in force till the disposal of the suit, and it had been confirmed in the appeal. This aspect was noticed by the appellate court. The appellate court has also held that the testamentary capacity of the testator has not been objected to by the appellant. What requires to be examined is findings of the trial court about the execution of the will under suspicious circumstances."

Dismissing the appeal, it added, "The first appellate court has to give a clear finding as to the possession, but till then, there is no reason to disturb the status that was ordered to be maintained till the disposal of the suit."