Courts Can't Grant Temporary Injunction Against Entity Not Made Party To Suit: Karnataka High Court Relief To News Channel Btv Kannada

The Karnataka High Court has said that orders of temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit and restraining orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted.Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who had challenged an ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada's social media page in April this year by all social media platforms.The high court said “Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law. 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 court also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the first respondent M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited (who was the plaintiff before the trial court and had lodged a lawsuit against the petitioner), which the high court directed would be payable to the petitioners.The petitioners claimed that in the 3rd week of April, 2025 all social media platforms through their social media Administrator without any reference, but vaguely referring to an order of the civil Court, had blocked the social media page of the petitioners. On searching the petitioners came to know about the civil suit filed by their rival M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited, and in the said suit there is an order of restraint of use or airing of Btv Kannada in their respective social media page.The petitioners contended that the petitioner no. 2–M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited, in particular is not made a party, while the entire narration is on petitioner no. 2 and thus there is violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. However, the respondent referred to the earlier litigation of the year 2022 in which the 2nd petitioner had suffered a restraint order. It was said that this suit is only a continuation of that restraint order. These petitioners need not have been parties before the concerned Court, as the prayer that was sought in the suit was to restrain social media platforms from a particular action. It did not concern these petitioners. Therefore, on the ground that they were not made parties, the order cannot be interfered with. Findings: The bench referred to the plaint filed by M/s Eaglesight and noted that the entire plaint averments would clearly indicate that every paragraph is dedicated for making allegations against petitioner no. 2. All the litigations between the two are narrated. Based upon the plaint averments, the concerned Court passes an order on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC granting temporary injunction, the high court said. Following which it said “There is an ad interim ex-parte temporary injunction on an application filed by the plaintiff. The order straight away affects the rights of the petitioners. 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 added “It is trite that what has 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.” “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. The social media platforms which are made as defendants are only intermediaries,” it said. The high court observed that the right of petitioner no. 2 was taken away without hearing and without making the 2nd petitioner a party. The high court underscored that while the Court has power to grant a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, it however "cannot be granted against a person who is not even a party”.Allowing the Btv's petition the court directed the M/s Eaglesight to 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.Appearance: Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar a/w Advocate Kashinath J D for Petitioners.Senior Advocate K.N Phanindra a/w Advocate Arnav A Bagalwadi for R-1.Advocate Varun Pathak for R4.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 227. Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others Case No: WRIT...

Courts Can't Grant Temporary Injunction Against Entity Not Made Party To Suit: Karnataka High Court Relief To News Channel Btv Kannada

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Courts Can't Grant Temporary Injunction Against Entity Not Made Party To Suit: Karnataka High Court Relief To News Channel Btv Kannada

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers