2019 INSC 0190
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL No. 2013  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23249 of 2018)
Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan
Sahakari Bank Niyamit ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Taluka Tokrekoli
(Ambiga Samaji C Vikas Sangh
Indi) (Earlier Gangamath Sangha)
& Anr.      ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is   filed   against   the   final   judgment
and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the High Court
of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in Writ Petition No.203932
1 1

of 2015 whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 herein. 
3. A f ew facts need mention   infra   for the disposal of
this appeal, which involves a short question.
4. The appellant is defendant No. 2, respondent No.
1 is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is defendant No.
1 in O.S. No.445/2013 before the Court of Civil Judge,
Indi at Indi.
5. Respondent   No.   1   has   filed   a   civil   suit   against
respondent   No.   2­Deputy   Commissioner,   Bijapur
(defendant No. 1) and the appellant (defendant No. 2).
The suit is for a declaration and injunction in relation
to the suit land as detailed in the plaint. 
6. In this suit, the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein)
as well as defendant No. 2 (appellant herein) both filed
an   application   for   grant   of   injunction   against   each
other under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being IA No.1
and IA No.2 respectively.
2 2

7. The   Trial   Court   by   order   10.03.2014   dismissed
both   the   applications.   Defendant   No.   2   (appellant
herein)   felt   aggrieved   by   the   dismissal   of   his
application   (IA   No.2)   filed  Misc.   Appeal   No.   7/2014   in
the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi. By order
dated   16.07.2015   (Annexure   P­9),   the  appellate   Court
allowed the appeal and granted injunction which reads
as under: 
“ The   appeal   filed   by   the   defendant
No.2/appellant is allowed.
The   orders   passed   by   the   Trial   Court,   Civil
Judge   &   JMFC,   Indi   on   I.A.No.2   filed   by
defendant   No.2/appellant   under   Order   39
Rules   1   and   2   of   CPC   in   O.S.   No.445/2013
dated 10.3.2014 is hereby set aside.
The   plaintiff/respondent   No.1   is   hereby
restrained   from   causing   obstruction   to   the
defendant   No.2/appellant   in   making
constructing   over   the   property   as   prayed   in
the   application   I.A.No.2   till   the   disposal   of
suit.
No order as to costs.”
8. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) felt aggrieved and
filed   W.P.   No.203932/2015   in   the   High   Court   of
3 3

Karnataka, Kalaburagi and questioned its legality and
correctness.   By   impugned   order,   the   Single   Judge   of
the High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by
the   plaintiff   (respondent   No.   1).   The   High   Court
confirmed the injunction granted to defendant No. 2 by
the Appellate Court and at the same time also granted
injunction   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   restrained
defendant   No.   2   from   interfering   in   plaintiff's
possession. The order reads as under:
“ Therefore,   the   petition   is   partly   allowed.
The   order   dated   16.7.2015   passed   by   the
appellate   Court,   i.e.,   the   Senior   Civil   Judge
and   JMFC,   Indi,   in   Miscellaneous   Appeal
No.07   of   2014   granting   injunction   to   the
defendants   with   respect   to   property   bearing
CTS   No.1336A/1B1B/1A1A/1A1A/29
measuring 30x55=1650 sq. ft. situated at Indi
is   confirmed.     At   the   same   time,   the
application   filed   by   the   plaintiff   for
injunction   against   the   defendants   with
respect   to   property   bearing   CTS
No.1336A/1B/1A/1/1A/1A   measuring   30x40
and further 15x30 situated at Indi is allowed.
The   defendants   are   restrained   from
interfering   in   the   peaceful   possession   of   the
plaintiff’s   property   bearing   CTS
No.1336A/1B/1A/1/1A/1A   measuring   30x40
and   further   15x30   situated   at   Indi.     The
plaintiff   is   restrained   from   interfering   in   the
4 4

defendants’   possession   of   property   bearing
CTS   No.1336A/1B1B/1A1A/1A1A/29
measuring   30x55=1650   sq.ft.   situated   at
Indi.”
 
9. It   is   against   this   order   of   the   High   Court,
defendant No. 2 has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal
by way of special leave in this Court.
10. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court
was   justified   in   allowing   the   plaintiff's   writ   petition   in
part.
11.   Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the
impugned order remand the case to the High Court for
hearing   the   writ   petition   afresh   in   accordance   with
law.
12. The   need   to   remand   the   case   to   the   High   Court
has   occasioned   for   the   reason   that   firstly,   the   High
Court did not assign any reasons for allowing the writ
5 5

petition and secondly, the High Court seemed to have
passed somewhat inconsistent order. 
13. It   is   clear   from   the   fact   that   the   High   Court
allowed   the   injunction   application   made   by   both   the
parties against each other though the writ petition was
filed by the plaintiff against the appellate order, which
was passed only on the injunction application filed by
defendant No. 2 ( IA No.2) in their favour. 
14. In other words, the only question before the High
Court was whether the Appellate Court was justified in
allowing   the   defendant   No.2's   appeal   and   in
consequence was justified in allowing his (defendant’s)
injunction   application   (I.A.No.2)   made   against   the
plaintiff   seeking   injunction   in   relation   to   the   suit
property. 
15. The   reason   was   that   it   was   not   in   dispute   that
the   plaintiff   did   not   challenge   before   the   Appellate
Court that part of the order of the Trial Court by which
his injunction application was dismissed.
6 6

16. In   this   view   of   the   matter   when   the   plaintiff's
injunction   application   stood   dismissed   by   the   Trial
Court   and   the   same   was   not   carried   in   appeal   at   his
instance, the same could not have been revived by the
High Court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff.
17.    We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view
taken   by   the   High   Court   as   the   High   Court   neither
examined   the   facts   of   the   case   properly   nor   the   legal
questions   arising   in   the   case,   therefore   such   order   is
legally unsustainable.
18. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order   is   set   aside.   The   case   is   remanded   to   the   High
Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on its merits
in accordance with law.        
                                      .………...................................J.
                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]  
   
                                
     … ...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 25, 2019
7 7