A statutory CPC appeal ordinarily precludes an Article 227 challenge to an injunction order.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 1 October 2024 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which partly allowed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S. No. 2607 of 2021.

The respondent objected that the writ petition under Article 227 was not maintainable because the order was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The High Court considered the statutory appeal remedy and the petitioner’s decision to invoke Article 227 instead.

1. Whether an order made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC

2. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 227 challenging such an order when an appeal is available under the CPC

Section 104(1)(i), read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, provides an appeal from an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10.

The Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbaih Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, held that an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 is appealable, whether ex parte or otherwise, and that a party may appeal or seek relief under Order XXXIX Rule 4.

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabi v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538, and Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, (2022) 10 SCC 477, establish that where proceedings are before a civil court and the CPC provides an appellate remedy, the High Court should ordinarily not exercise Article 227 jurisdiction; the remedy is a near-total bar as a matter of judicial discipline and prudence.

The challenged order disposed of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, bringing it within the express appeal provision in Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Applying the Supreme Court authorities, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal rather than challenge the civil court’s order under Article 227.

Although Article 227 powers cannot be curtailed, the available CPC remedy should be exercised in this case.

It left the rights and contentions of both parties open for consideration before that forum.