Individual Would Not Be Entitled To Relief If He Fails To Establish That Non-Grant Of Injunction Would Result In Irreparable Loss: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that to be granted an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it is essential to demonstrate that failure to grant the injunction would result in irreparable loss.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Trial and Appellate Court. The Court held that the grant of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is a discretionary relief.
Justice S.G. Pandit observed, “Grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is a discretionary relief. Unless a person, who seeks an order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC makes out a prima facie case and would show that non grant of injunction would result in irreparable loss, the person who seeks injunction would not be entitled for the said relief”.
Advocates P.M. Gopi and P.M. Siddamallappa appeared for the Petitioner.
A Writ Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court whereby an application was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to restrain the Fourth defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property was rejected.
The Court noted that the grant of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is a discretionary relief and unless the Person seeking such relief establishes a prima facie case that non-grant of the injunction would cause irreparable loss, the individual is not entitled to such relief.
The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Anwar Pasha v Pyare Jaan & Ors. (2023:KHC:36017)
