The Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, recently dismissed a writ petition (WP No. 202681 of 2024) filed by Vishwanath S/o Basappa Baati, an agriculturist from Kolhar, challenging an interim injunction order. The judgment, delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj on September 30, 2024, clarified the legal recourse available for challenging interim orders passed by civil courts.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vishwanath Basappa Baati, approached the court seeking to quash an order dated September 19, 2024, passed in I.A. No. 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Basavanabagewadi, in O.S. No. 106/2022. The trial court’s order denied interim injunction relief, which the petitioner sought to challenge through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution could challenge an interim order issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The court also had to consider the applicability of a writ of certiorari against a judicial order and whether supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could be invoked in this scenario.
Court’s Findings
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, the petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 226 was found inappropriate. The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jharkhand v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava was cited, stating that a writ petition challenging a civil court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction can be maintained under Article 227, not Article 226.
The court further elaborated that seeking a writ of certiorari against a judicial order from a civil court is not maintainable. The appropriate course of action would be to file an appeal under the CPC. Since the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties, it did not qualify for supervisory intervention under Article 227, which applies mainly when ex parte orders are issued.
Important Observations
Justice Govindaraj remarked: “After hearing all parties to the proceedings, the order was passed following an adjudicatory process. In such circumstances, a supervisory writ under Article 227 is not maintainable.” He further emphasized that “the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to file a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the interim order.”
The High Court upheld the objections raised by the registry regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to seek relief through an appeal. The judgment reiterates the boundaries of judicial review and emphasizes the procedural requirements for challenging orders related to interim injunctions.
Parties and Representation
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sri Yatnal P.G., while the respondents, including the State of Karnataka, the Deputy Commissioner of Vijayapura, the Assistant Commissioner, and other authorities involved with the Upper Krishna Project, were represented by High Court Government Pleader Smt. Maya T.R. and Advocate Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath.
