Temporary Injunction Cannot Be Granted Against One Who Is Not Party To Suit: Karnataka High Court Allows Plea Of BTV Kannada’s Director
The Karnataka High Court elucidated that temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made Defendants in the Suit.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High held that temporary injunction cannot be granted to the one who is not even a party to the Suit.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by the Director of M/s BTV Kannada Private Limited against the Order of the Sessions Judge, issuing ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in a Suit restraining from airing its programme.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The social media platforms which are made as defendants are only intermediary. The right of the 2nd petitioner is what is taken away without hearing and without making 2nd petitioner a party. While it is the power of the Court to grant temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, that cannot be granted against a person who is not even a party.”
The Bench elucidated that temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made Defendants in the Suit and restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law.
Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Advocate K.N. Phanindra and Advocate Varun Pathak appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was a journalist by profession and was running a social media in the logo BTV Kannada for broadcasting and publication. He was one of the Directors of M/s BTV Kannada Private Limited (company). The said company earned revenue out of the social media page on the logo BTV Kannada. Suddenly, the said social media page was blocked and removed in April 2025 by all social media platforms through their social media Administrator without any reference, but vaguely referring to an Order of the Civil Court.
It was then the Petitioners went in search of the said Civil Suit and came to know that there was a Suit instituted by rival claimant against whom several litigations are pending. In the said Suit, there was an order of restraint of use or airing of BTV Kannada in their respective social media page. Questioning the Order passed by the concerned Court, the Petitioners were before the High Court on the score that ad-interim injunction is granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 by the Civil Court without even making the Petitioners a party, while making every other social media platform a party.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, remarked, “Surprisingly, the order is corrected four days later on 07-04-2025. While several allegations are made with regard to the correction, but they appear to be typographical errors being corrected. Nonetheless, there is an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction on an application filed by the plaintiff. The order straight away affects the right of the petitioners.”
The Court was of the view that when the entire pleadings and the prayer are pointed against the Petitioners, the concerned Court ought not to have granted an accused-interim temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from acting in a particular manner, which would straight away affect the rights of the Petitioners.
“It is trite that what had to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. An indirect method of keeping the petitioners away by not arraying them as parties and filing the O.S.No.2499 of 2025 was itself a dubious step, on the part of the 1st respondent/plaintiff”, it added.
The Court further said that while litigants may make or may not make certain parties as Defendants, though seeking a prayer against those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the law and pass the Orders of the kind that is now passed.
“The submission of the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff is that there was an injunction order. This order is in continuation of the said injunction order and it is not against the petitioners. The said submission is noted only to be rejected. The direct effect of the prayer that is sought was that the petitioners could not use their Btv logo in all social media platforms; it does not affect the social media platform but it affects the 2nd petitioner”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, ordered that the Plaintiff shall now implead the Petitioners as Defendants in the subject Suit, failing which, no Order can be passed against the Petitioners at any point during the subsistence of the Suit.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable by the Respondent to the Petitioners, and set aside the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Rachappa Sathish Kumar & Anr. v. M/s. Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar and Advocate Kashinath J.D.
Respondents: Senior Advocate K.N. Phanindra, Advocates Varun Pathak, and Arnav A. Bagalwadi.
