Karnataka High Court
Ms Padma R vs Ms Bollamma B M on 10 February, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
R.F.A. NO.1717 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
MS.PADMA R.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O RAMAIAH, NO.497
FF-5, ELEGANT EMBASSY
17TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME
SOCIETY LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADV.)
AND:
MS.BOLLAMMA B. M.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
D/O B.B.MACHAIAH
NO.497, FF-5 ELEGANT EMBASSY
17TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME
SOCIETY LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M. T. NANAIAH, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV.)
2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2020 PASSED
IN OS.NO.5403/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY PARTLY DECREEDING THE SUIT FOR
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
16.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.5403/2016 by the LXVIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the
defendant therein has preferred this appeal.
2. Though the matter is posted for hearing on
I.A.1/2021, with the consent of the parties, the matter is
taken up for final hearing.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for a
relief of mandatory injunction for direction to the
defendant to vacate the suit premises and also for
permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with
the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property. The defendant has resisted by filing
her written statement.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has
framed the following issues:-
1. "Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the
exclusive owner of the suit schedule property and
has purchased the same under a Registered Sale
Deed dated 19.05.2011 from her vendors?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she had
permitted the defendant to stay in the suit
premises along with her (plaintiff) temporarily with
the defendant bag and baggage?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
had undertaken to vacate the suit premises as
soon as she gets an accommodation elsewhere?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has
failed to keep up her words and has caused
interference with the possession of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is
liable to pay damages @ Rs.20,000/- per month
from the date of suit?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory
injunction as sought for?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction as sought for?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as
sought for?
9. What Order/Decree?"
6. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in,
the trial Court has answered the aforementioned issues as
mentioned hereunder:-
"Issue Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Issue Nos.5 & 8: Does not arise for consideration
in the present suit;
Issue No.9 : As per final order;"
Consequently, the trial Court has passed the
following order:-
"The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with
costs.
An order of mandatory injunction is granted in
favour of the plaintiff with a direction to the defendant to
vacate the suit premises along with her bag and baggage
within Three months from the date of this order.
Further an order of permanent injunction is
granted restraining the defendant or anyone on her
behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over
the suit schedule premises in any manner.
In so far as monitory relief sought for by the
plaintiff by way of damages is concerned, there shall be a
separate enquiry by way of separate proceedings, if the
plaintiff intends to pursue the said claim for damages,
subject to the Law of Limitation.
Draw decree accordingly."
Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal is filed.
7. The main ground of challenge is that suit has
been decreed without giving an opportunity to the
defendant to address her final arguments. It is further
submitted that defendant could not address final argument
due to Covid pandemic.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent do not
dispute the said fact. However, he submits that the
defendant has contested the suit and has let in her
evidence and based on the pleadings and the evidence let
in, by both the parties, the trial Court has decided the case
and there is no error in the aforementioned judgment and
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The appellant does not dispute the fact that she
was given an opportunity to adduce her evidence and she
has let in her evidence. Her only contention is that she
was not able to address her final arguments due to the
Covid pandemic.
10. Admittedly, the defendant was not in a position
to address her arguments before the trial Court and for
that reason, it would be appropriate to remand the matter
back to the trial Court to limited extent to giving an
opportunity to the defendant/appellant to address her
arguments. Hence, the following order is passed without
going into the merits of the case:-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the trial
Court only for the purpose of providing an
opportunity for parties to address their final
arguments afresh.
(iii) The trial Court shall hear the arguments of
both the parties and pass appropriate
judgment.
(iv) Parties are directed to appear before the
trial Court on 11.03.2022 without further
notice.
(v) Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible.
(vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MH/-
