The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against refusal of an order of injunction can only be filed if it is an ex-parte order and not otherwise.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition, the maintainability of which had been objected to by the registry.

A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "Insofar as the third contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that refusal of an order of injunction can be subject matter of a proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same would have been so if at a ex-parte stage, the relief of injunction is refused by a Trial court. In the present case, as can be seen from the impugned order, the said order has been passed after service of notice on the defendant and after hearing the plaintiff and defendant as such, after an adjudicatory order had been passed, after hearing all the parties to the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercising supervisory jurisdiction is not maintainable."

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Yatnal P.G. while the respondents were represented by Government Pleader Maya T.R. and Advocate Ratna N. Shivayahogimath.

The petitioner had sought the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, by the Addl. Civil Judge.

The High Court Registry however raised an objection on the maintainability of the petition on the following grounds:

1) the writ petition was filed under Article 226 challenging an order passed by a Judicial Officer

2) relief of certiorari was sought for and

3) the impugned order was passed after hearing both parties

It was its view that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is a miscellaneous first appeal and not a writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. to submit that, insofar as an order of the civil Court refusing the grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is concerned, a writ petition under Article 227 would be maintainable.

The Court however rejected his submission noting that the petition could not have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even as per the Apex Court's ratio in the cited case. The Court upheld the Registry's objection that no certiorari can be sought for against a Judicial order of a Court.

With regard to refusal of an order of injunction being a subject matter of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that the same is appropriate only if at an ex-parte stage, the relief of injunction is refused by a Trial court.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Vishwanath vs State of Karnataka

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Yatnal P.G.

Respondent: High Court Government Pleader Maya T.R. and Advocate Ratna N. Shivayahogimath

Click here to read/ download order





Karnataka High CourtJustice Suraj Govindaraj

Sheetal Joon