After Nearly 5 Years, Karnataka HC Leaves Farmland Possession Injunction In Place, Directs Rival Suits To Be Decided Together Within A Year

Jinnappa filed O.S. No. 314/2019 seeking a permanent injunction over agricultural land, asserting title under a registered sale deed and possession reflected in revenue records.

The trial court granted a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against defendant No. 1, Mahadev, and the appellate court dismissed Mahadev’s appeal, affirming that order.

Mahadev challenged both orders in this writ petition nearly five years after the trial court’s order and almost three years after the appellate order.

He said the need to challenge them arose after a later order directing police assistance to the plaintiffs; the respondents opposed the petition on the ground of delay.

The parties also had a separate, pending suit, O.S. No. 119/2019, concerning the same subject matter and raising similar claims.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern the grant of temporary injunctions.

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may decline to disturb concurrent discretionary orders where they are supported by the record and disclose no irregularity or perversity.

The Court cited no precedent; it also treated the petitioner’s substantial delay in challenging the orders as a relevant circumstance.

The trial court and appellate court had considered the plaintiff’s registered sale deed and revenue entries and concluded that the plaintiff had title and possession sufficient to justify interim protection.

The High Court found no irregularity or perversity in those concurrent discretionary findings.

It also considered that Mahadev had waited nearly five years after the trial court’s order and nearly three years after the appellate decision before seeking relief, and declined to reverse the orders.

Given that the two suits involved the same parties, subject matter, and similar claims, the Court accepted the parties’ submission that analogous trial and early disposal would serve the purpose of the petition.

It directed the trial court to hear O.S. No. 314/2019 and O.S. No. 119/2019 analogously and dispose of both as expeditiously as possible, within one year of receiving a certified copy of the order.