The Karnataka High Court has clarified a critical procedural limit on the inherent powers of civil courts under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a decisive ruling, the Court held that a defendant cannot invoke these powers to compel a plaintiff to deposit arrears of rent in a suit seeking only permanent injunction, especially when no counter-claim has been filed. This judgment reinforces the boundaries of judicial discretion in civil litigation and provides immediate guidance to practitioners handling property disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mr. Nemiraj Shetty, filed Original Suit No. 1134 of 2024 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent, Mr. Shravan Krishnaraj, restraining him from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of immovable property in Padavu, Mangaluru. The suit was grounded in the petitioner’s claim of lawful ownership and peaceful possession. The respondent filed a written statement denying the petitioner’s title and asserting his own right to possession, but did not file a counter-claim for recovery of rent or possession.
Key Facts
- The suit was instituted on the basis of alleged unlawful interference with the petitioner’s possession of a residential property
- No plea for recovery of rent, arrears, or possession was raised in the written statement
- The respondent’s defense focused solely on challenging the petitioner’s title and possession
- No counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC was filed by the respondent
- The respondent sought relief only through an application under Section 151 CPC
Procedural History
- 15.01.2024: Original Suit No. 1134 of 2024 filed by petitioner seeking permanent injunction
- 28.02.2024: Respondent filed written statement denying allegations
- 10.07.2024: Issues framed by the trial court
- 15.11.2024: Evidence proceedings commenced
- 05.02.2026: Respondent filed I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 1134/2024 under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,50,000
- 25.02.2026: Trial court allowed the application and directed petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,50,000 as arrears of rent
- 10.03.2026: Writ Petition No. 10495 of 2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Article 227
- 09.04.2026: Hearing before Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 25.02.2026 directing deposit of Rs. 12,50,000 as arrears of rent, and a declaration that such an order is legally impermissible in the absence of a counter-claim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court, in a suit for permanent injunction where no counter-claim has been filed, can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff to deposit arrears of rent.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to create a substantive right or remedy not otherwise available under the Code. Since the respondent had not filed a counter-claim for recovery of rent or possession, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant relief equivalent to a money decree. Reliance was placed on Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize that inherent powers are procedural and cannot override substantive limitations. The direction to deposit rent was tantamount to granting interim relief on a claim not pleaded, violating the principles of fair trial and pleadings.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the trial court acted within its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. They argued that the petitioner, as a tenant in possession, was unjustly enriched by withholding rent despite the respondent’s ownership claim. Reliance was placed on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan to suggest that courts may intervene to prevent inequity even without a formal counter-claim. However, no statutory provision or binding precedent was cited to support the direct imposition of a rent deposit obligation in the absence of a counter-claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the nature of the suit and the scope of Section 151 CPC. It observed that the suit was strictly for permanent injunction, with no prayer for recovery of rent, possession, or damages. The respondent’s written statement, while disputing title, contained no counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 are not a substitute for specific remedies provided under the Code.
"The power under Section 151 CPC is not a licence to create new causes of action or to grant reliefs not pleaded. It is a residuary power to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, but it cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory requirements of pleading and joinder of claims."
The Court distinguished cases where rent deposits were ordered in suits for eviction or recovery of possession, noting that those involve direct claims for possession or arrears. In contrast, a suit for permanent injunction is a protective remedy, not a claim for monetary recovery. The trial court’s order effectively converted a suit for injunction into a quasi-recovery suit without any procedural basis.
The Court further held that allowing such applications would open the floodgates to tactical litigation, where defendants routinely seek rent deposits in injunction suits to harass plaintiffs, thereby undermining the procedural integrity of civil litigation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,50,000 as arrears of rent, is hereby set aside. It is clarified that if the respondent wishes to claim rent arrears or possession, he may file a formal counter-claim in accordance with Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, and the trial court shall decide such a claim on its merits, uninfluenced by the observations in this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inherent Powers Cannot Create Substantive Claims
- Practitioners must now argue that any request for monetary relief in a suit for injunction must be pleaded as a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
- Courts cannot use Section 151 CPC to grant relief equivalent to a money decree absent a counter-claim
- Applications seeking rent deposits in injunction suits are now procedurally defective unless tied to a pleaded counter-claim
Pleadings Are Non-Negotiable in Civil Litigation
- The judgment reinforces the foundational principle that courts decide only on pleaded claims
- Oral submissions or unpleaded assertions cannot form the basis for monetary orders
- Lawyers must ensure all monetary claims are formally pleaded; otherwise, they are waived
Strategic Implications for Property Disputes
- Defendants seeking rent recovery must file counter-claims early - delay may result in waiver
- Plaintiffs in injunction suits can now challenge rent deposit applications as ultra vires
- Trial courts must screen applications under Section 151 CPC for compliance with pleading requirements before granting relief
