Smt N Hemalatha vs Smt Sunitha
2022 Latest Caselaw 114 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                            BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

              M. F. A. NO.5866 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. N. HEMALATHA,
W/O SRI. G.S. HARIN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT No.786, 7TH MAIN,
SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     SMT. SUNITHA,
       W/O LATE SHIVARAM,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       R/AT SONNAREDODDI VILLAGE,
       GOTTIGEHALLI POST,
       HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112.
2.     SMT. V. SUJATHA,
       D/O SRI. VEERANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       R/AT No.21/3, AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
       UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
       BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
       BENGALURU - 560 026.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
 R-2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:09.12.2021)
                                  2


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD:05.10.2021
PASSED IN O.S.NO.3997/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(CCH-53), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC.


    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed the undertaking affidavit stating

that the appellant will not errect/undertake putting up

construction even in an inch of the property encroaching on

6 feet wide passage as shown in the sketch map produced in

this petition. It is stated that the said passage is covered by

zinc sheet by Smt.Sunitha and further the appellant his

confine with the construction within his area undertaking the

affidavit is placed on record.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo

stating that undertaking by the appellant not to put up

construction in the passage and not constructing the pillar

which is newly erected, the appeal may be dismissed

permitting the appellant to put up construction in her

property leaving setback after the passage, keeping open all

the contentions.

3. Memo is placed on record.

4. In view of the undertaking given by the appellant

nothing survive for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is

disposed of. The order of the Trial Court is modified and

directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of wide

passage i.e., 6 feet X 33 feet, which is shown in blue colour

in the sketch map produced in this writ petition.

5. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2021

does not survive for consideration and is accordingly

disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

GRD