Karnataka HC Rejects Bid To Make Partition Plaintiff Redeposit ₹15.65 Lakh, Says Defendant Can Pursue Alleged Restraint Breach Separately

The petitioner, Defendant No. 1 in a partition suit, sought dismissal of the suit but made no counterclaim

In 2015, the appellate court restrained the parties from alienating the suit properties and restrained the plaintiff from withdrawing or using fixed-deposit amounts totalling ₹15,65,000, which had been deposited by the petitioner

The petitioner later applied under Section 151 CPC for an order directing the plaintiff to redeposit that sum with accrued interest. The trial court rejected the application, noting that the appellate order contained no direction to deposit the money and that the plaintiff had admitted using it

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the petitioner’s application before the trial court was made under Section 151 CPC.

The Court held that an alleged violation or wilful disobedience of an appellate court’s order may be pursued through an appropriate remedy available under law; a party claiming an interest in the fixed deposit may likewise seek an appropriate remedy.

The appellate order restrained the plaintiff from withdrawing or using the amount but did not direct the plaintiff to redeposit it.

The petitioner’s application therefore sought a deposit order not contained in the appellate order.

The Court agreed with the trial court that the alleged use of the amount should be addressed through an appropriate remedy for breach of the appellate order, if established, and that any claim to the fixed deposit could be pursued separately.

The petitioner had not shown grounds for interference with the trial court’s decision

left open the petitioner’s ability to pursue an appropriate remedy concerning the alleged breach of the appellate order or any claim to the fixed deposit