Karnataka HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Land Injunction For Rehearing After Old Survey Description Appeared To Sidestep Caveat Notice

In brief

The question

1. Whether the ex parte injunction should be set aside where the plaint’s description of the suit property allegedly concealed its current survey number and avoided notice to the caveators.

The court held

The writ petition was allowed, and the ex parte injunction dated 3 October 2026 was set aside.

It also directed

The petitioners undertook to appear before the Trial Court on 13 November 2026; the Trial Court was directed to allow them until 20 November 2026 to file objections to I.A. No. 1 and thereafter adjudicate the application.

Pending reconsideration, the petitioners were expected not to create third-party rights.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged an ex parte temporary injunction dated 3 October 2026, granted in a suit concerning land in Yarthiganahalli Village.

p. 4

They contended that they had filed a caveat describing the relevant land as part of Survey No. 73, whereas the plaint described the suit property as four acres in old Survey No. 55 without identifying the current survey number.

pp. 4–5

They argued that this description was used to avoid notice under the caveat and that the injunction had been obtained by suppression of material facts.

pp. 4–5

The High Court considered the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and dispensed with notice to the respondents because it intended to issue a limited direction.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the ex parte injunction should be set aside where the plaint’s description of the suit property allegedly concealed its current survey number and avoided notice to the caveators.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court should reconsider the injunction application after giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 4

It applied the principle that a caveator should not be deprived of the opportunity to oppose interim relief through misleading property descriptions; otherwise, the purpose of the caveat provision would be defeated.

p. 6

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

04Reasoning

The plaint described the property as four acres in old Survey No. 55 without stating the current survey number, while the caveat described two four-acre parcels forming part of Survey No. 73, itself part of the larger extent in old Survey No. 55.

pp. 5–6

On that material, the petitioners’ contention that the description was intended to avoid notice appeared tenable.

p. 6

The Court also found no indication that rehearing the application would change the property’s identity or create an irreversible situation.

p. 6

It therefore set aside the ex parte injunction so the petitioners could oppose the application before the Trial Court.

pp. 6–7