Karnataka HC Bars Apartment Association From Cutting Resident’s Common Services During Suit, If She Deposits Quarterly Maintenance

The plaintiff sued the Association and other defendants, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a 2014 deed of declaration was void and directions concerning the constitution of an apartment owners’ association and access to common areas.

By I.A. No. VII under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, she sought an interim restraint against disconnection of common-area maintenance services. The trial court granted the application without making the restraint expressly conditional on payment of maintenance.

The Association appealed, arguing that the plaintiff should be required to pay maintenance. The plaintiff stated that she had been regularly depositing the amount in court and did not object to the Association withdrawing it under the order on I.A. No. VIII, which was not challenged in the appeal.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the court to grant temporary injunctions; an order under those provisions may be appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The Court applied the principle that interim protection against disconnection of common-area services should not operate as a blanket order where the beneficiary is liable to pay maintenance: the restraint may be made subject to regular deposit of the maintenance amount.

The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 was relevant to the underlying suit, but the Court did not decide the parties’ dispute under that Act at this interim stage. No precedent was cited.

The Court noted the dispute concerning the deed of declaration and the association’s constitution would be determined at trial. It accepted the Association’s submission that the injunction should not exempt the plaintiff from maintenance payments.

Although the plaintiff had volunteered to deposit maintenance regularly and the Association could withdraw the deposited sums under the unchallenged order on I.A. No. VIII, the Court considered an express condition necessary to the injunction.

The Court also corrected a typographical error in the trial court’s order: the Association, not the plaintiff, was entitled to withdraw the maintenance amount deposited in court.