- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAJAMMA v. NANJAMMA
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs (appellants) had obtained a temporary injunction from the trial court on 14 March 2023. The defendants (respondents) challenged that order before the High Court of Karnataka in Misc. First Appeal (M.F.A.) No. 2172 of 2023. On 4 August 2023, the High Court set aside the trial court’s injunction, stating that the plaintiffs had made an incorrect averment regarding the effect of an earlier order dated 20 April 2022 passed in Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.) No. 1060 of 2020. The plaintiffs then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25293 of 2023, which was granted, converting the matter into the present civil appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs had in fact made an incorrect averment about the effect of the order dated 20 April 2022 in R.F.A. No. 1060 of 2020.
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s temporary injunction solely on the basis of the alleged incorrect statement.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook its own examination of:
- The averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs.
- The written statement submitted by the defendants.
- The record of proceedings dated 20 April 2022 in R.F.A. No. 1060 of 2020.
After this review, the Court concluded that:
- No incorrect statement had been made by the plaintiffs in their suit with respect to the earlier R.F.A. order.
- The High Court had therefore committed an error in treating the alleged incorrect statement as the basis for overturning the trial court’s injunction.
Because the High Court’s decision rested on a premise found to be factually inaccurate, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order could not stand.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the High Court’s order dated 4 August 2023. M.F.A. No. 2172 of 2023 is restored to the High Court’s file to be decided on merits alongside R.F.A. No. 1060 of 2020.
Implications: Both pending appeals will be heard together by the High Court, with all contentions open to the parties. Until those appeals are decided, the parties must maintain the status quo as it exists on the date of the Supreme Court’s order. The Supreme Court’s decision does not create a new legal precedent but corrects a factual error underpinning the High Court’s earlier ruling.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7723 OF 2023
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25293 OF 2023] RAJAMMA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NANJAMMA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
By the consent of learned senior counsel appearing for both the sides, the case is taken up and decided at the motion hearing stage.
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 04.08.2023 in M.F.A. No. 2172 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, in whose favour temporary injunction was granted by the trial court vide order dated 14.03.2023. The said order was set aside by the impugned order. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court has allowed the appeal holding that the
2
plaintiffs have made an incorrect averment in the suit filed by them. According to the High Court, the incorrect averment was about the effect of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed in R.F.A.No. 1060 of 2020. R.F.A. No. 1060 of 2020 was filed by the defendants herein against the dismissal of an earlier suit filed by them. We have perused the averments made in the plaint in the present proceedings. We have also perused the written statement filed by the defendants herein. We have been taken through the Record of Proceeding dated 20.04.2022 in R.F.A.No. 1060 of 2020. We are satisfied that no incorrect statement was made and the High Court erred in holding that there was an incorrect statement and that the incorrect statement was the basis, on which the injunction was obtained. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the order impugned with an observation that the Misc. First Appeal filed by the defendants/respondents bearing No. M.F.A.No. 2172 of 2023 be restored to its file and be decided on merits, considering all the contentions, along with R.F.A.No. 1060 of 2020. We are informed that
3
R.F.A. No. 1060 of 2020 is scheduled to be listed on 28.11.2023 before the High Court. Ordered accordingly. While disposing of this appeal, it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo, as it exists today, till the disposal of the Regular First Appeal and the Misc. First Appeal. The parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions in the pending appeals before the High Court.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
.………......................J.
[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]
........………..............J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
NOVEMBER 21, 2023.
4
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25293 of 2023 (Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2023 in MFA No. 2172 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
RAJAMMA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NANJAMMA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.234059/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 21-11-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Appellant(s) Mr. An Venugopal Gowda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Balaji B.L., Adv.
Mr. Pratham Narendrakumar, Adv.
Mr. D.k. Garg, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR
Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on the file)
Alert