Karnataka HC Sends Crop-Harvesting Injunction Plea Back, Saying Appeal Court Considered A Different Pending Application; Possession Status Quo Continues

The respondent filed O.S. No. 394/2024 seeking a permanent injunction and moved I.A. No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to restrain interference with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

After notice, he filed a further application seeking to restrain the defendants from obstructing agricultural activities and harvesting crops. The Trial Court rejected that further application on 8 January 2025.

In appeal, the First Appellate Court considered I.A. No. 1 and granted an injunction, although that application had not been adjudicated by the Trial Court and was stated to remain pending. The petitioners challenged the appellate order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court had earlier directed the parties to maintain status quo as to possession pending its decision.

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

An appellate court considering an appeal from an order on an interim application must address the application and order actually under appeal; it should not decide a separate application that remains pending before the Trial Court.

The High Court considered the matter under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. No precedent was cited.

The First Appellate Court considered I.A. No. 1, which sought protection against interference with possession, instead of the later application concerning obstruction of agricultural activities and harvesting—the application the Trial Court had rejected and which was the subject of the appeal.

As I.A. No. 1 remained pending before the Trial Court, the appellate court had misdirected itself. The High Court therefore found the appellate order unsustainable and, to facilitate proper adjudication, also set aside the Trial Court’s order and remitted both applications for independent reconsideration.

The orders dated 8 January 2025 and 22 August 2025 were set aside, and both pending applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, uninfluenced by the observations in the set-aside orders.

The Trial Court was directed to decide both applications within six weeks of production of the High Court’s order. The status quo direction concerning possession was continued until that decision.