Karnataka HC Transfers Appeal Against Rejected Interim-Injunction Plea To District Court, Holds High Court Appeal Not Maintainable Under Civil Courts Act

The appellants filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC challenging the Senior Civil Judge’s order dated 27 June 2019 dismissing their application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S. No. 1092/2013

The High Court considered the appeal’s maintainability in light of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and a Division Bench decision of that Court, which the Supreme Court had affirmed

1. Whether the High Court could entertain the appeal in view of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the cited precedent.

2. Whether the matter should be transferred to the competent District Court for adjudication from the stage at which it stood.

The Court relied on Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, together with the Division Bench decision in Smt. Narayanamma v. The State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 17588 of 2024 c/w W.A. No. 200260 of 2025, dated 8 July 2026, which the Supreme Court affirmed in SLP(C) No. 025075/2026 on 3 August 2026.

Applying these authorities, the Court held that this appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and that it should be placed before the competent appellate court in the District Court.

The Court concluded that Section 19(1), read with the cited and Supreme Court-affirmed precedent, made the appeal not maintainable before it.

Rather than determine the injunction dispute, it directed transfer of the case record and any pending applications to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent appellate court. It expressly left the merits and parties’ contentions open.

It directed the Registry to transfer the entire case record, including any pending applications, to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent appellate court. The Court made no observation on the merits and left all parties’ rights and contentions open.