Karnataka HC Upholds Denial Of Temporary Injunction, Directs Trial Court To Resume 2018 Suit Stalled By Separate Writ Order

The petitioners, as plaintiffs in O.S. No. 164/2018, sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit for bare injunction. The Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, rejected the application on 3 August 2018, and the appellate court affirmed that decision on 27 June 2019 in M.A. No. 25/2018.

The petitioners challenged those concurrent orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the suit had not progressed; the Trial Judge reported that proceedings had stalled due to an interim order in W.P. No. 4081/2022, disposed of on 25 November 2025, and that the parties had not informed the Trial Court of its disposal.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to substitute its view for that of the courts below merely because another view is possible. Interference with concurrent orders refusing temporary injunction is warranted only where there is patent illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the courts.

The application for temporary injunction was made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The Court also observed that parties seeking equitable injunctive relief are expected to diligently prosecute their proceedings.

The High Court found no demonstrated jurisdictional error or perversity in the Trial Court’s refusal of interim relief or the appellate court’s affirmance. It therefore declined to reassess the prima facie material as though exercising appellate jurisdiction.

As to delay, the Court considered the Trial Judge’s report concerning the intervening order in W.P. No. 4081/2022 and the parties’ failure to notify the Trial Court of its disposal. It directed the Trial Court to resume the suit and cautioned that further lack of diligence or avoidable delay by the plaintiffs could attract appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The Trial Court was directed to resume O.S. No. 164/2018 and proceed in accordance with law; the parties were directed to cooperate in its expeditious disposal.