RAVINDRANATH Vs. RUKMINIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, established under the City Civil Court Act, 1979 ('the City Civil Court Act' for short), seeking grant of a perpetual injunction against respondent-1 respecting an immovable property, the value of which was not less than Rs. 20,000/-. In that suit, he made an interlocutory application--I.A.II, under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short), seeking grant of temporary injunction. That application was rejected by an order made by the City Civil Court. The appellant has questioned the validity of that order before this Court by preferring an appeal under Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the the First Schedule to the Code.

(2.) Whether the powers of the High Court in relation to an appeal under Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the First Schedule to the Code, have to be exercised by a single Judge or by us, a Bench of two Judges, is a question which is required to be resolved by us because of a controversy raised in this regard by learned Counsel appearing for the contesting parties. As the said question has to be resolved with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 ('the High Court Act' for short), as they stand amended by the City Civil Court Act bearing upon it, we shall advert to them at the outset.

(3.) The preamble to the High Court Act states that it is an Act intended to make provisions for regulating the business and the exercise of powers of the High Court of the State of Karnataka in relation to the administration of justice and to provide for its jurisdiction. Section 2(3) of the High Court Act states that "First Appeal" means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force lies to the High Court from a judgment, decree or order, made by a subordinate Civil Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Section 5 thereof, in so far as it is material, reads thus :