Order XLIII appeals from Senior Civil Judge orders lie before the District Court, not the High Court.

The appellants filed three miscellaneous first appeals against orders dated 9 August 2023 in O.S. No. 49/2021, by which the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, rejected applications for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC

On final hearing, the High Court considered the appeals’ maintainability under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, in light of a Division Bench decision subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appeals were maintainable before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964

2. If not, whether the matters should be transferred to the competent appellate court for adjudication from the stage already reached

The Court applied Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, as interpreted in Smt. Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 17588/2024 c/w W.A. No. 200260/2025, decided on 8 July 2026.

It noted that the Division Bench decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 025075/2026 on 3 August 2026, and held that the appeals were not maintainable before the High Court

The judgment does not set out the provision’s detailed interpretation.

Applying Section 19(1) and the cited, Supreme Court-affirmed precedent, the Court concluded that these appeals were not maintainable before it

Rather than determine the injunction disputes, it directed transfer of the records to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent appellate court. It expressly left the merits and all parties’ contentions open

It directed the Registry to transfer the complete records, including any pending applications, to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent appellate court, which would consider the matters from the stage at which they had stopped

The parties were directed to appear before that court on 26 October 2026, and no view was expressed on the merits