Karnataka HC Continues Interim Protection For Appellant’s Possession Against BESCOM, BDA Until 2008 Partition Suit Ends

The appellant, defendant No. 6 in O.S. No. 6369/2008, appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the trial court’s dismissal of her application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

The suit sought partition, separate possession, declaration and consequential permanent injunction. The appellant sought an injunction restraining BESCOM and the Bengaluru Development Authority from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the counterclaim-schedule property; she contended that she had purchased the property from plaintiff No. 2 and his children.

During the appeal, the High Court had ordered BESCOM and the Authority not to interfere with her lawful and peaceful possession pending further hearing.

At the appeal hearing, counsel for the appellant and those respondents agreed to continuation of that order until disposal of the suit and to cooperate in its expeditious disposal; the suit had reached the evidence stage.

1. Whether the High Court should continue its interim protection of the appellant’s possession until disposal of the suit, in light of the parties’ agreement.

2. Whether the trial court should be directed to endeavour to dispose of the 2008 suit expeditiously.

Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC provides for an appeal from specified orders concerning temporary injunctions. Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern the grant of temporary injunctions, while Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers.

The Court did not articulate or apply a substantive test for interim injunctions, or rely on any precedent; it disposed of the appeal on the parties’ agreement to continue the interim order and pursue the suit expeditiously.

The Court did not assess the merits of the injunction application or the parties’ competing claims.

Instead, it recorded the agreement of the appellant and respondents Nos. 7 and 8 to continue the High Court’s existing protection until disposal of the suit. Given that the suit was of 2008 and evidence had commenced, the Court considered expeditious trial the appropriate course and directed the parties to cooperate, while permitting the trial court to impose costs for unnecessary adjournments.

The parties were directed to cooperate in its expeditious disposal, and the trial court was permitted to impose costs for unnecessary adjournments.