Sri B Karunakara Hegde vs The Mangaluru City Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 8499 Kant

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND
              THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

               W.A.NO.555 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI B KARUNAKARA HEGDE
       S/O LATE B JAGANNATH HEGDE,
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

2.     SMT VIJAYA K HEGDE
       W/O SIR B KARUNAKARA HEGDE,
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.104,
       WEST END MANOR,
       KANKANADY BYPASS ROAD,
       MANGALURU - 575 002

                                           ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION
       MANGALURU
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
       REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.     SRI SURESH
       S/O SMT VASANTHI
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
       RESIDING AT SOWPARNIKA
       PADUMANE COMPOUND
       KANAKANADY BYEPASS ROAD
       MANGALURU - 575 002
                               2


                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    SRI. K.N.NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

      THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASDIE THE ORDER DATED
25.03.2021 MADE IN WP NO.33548/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NOT SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THEREIN AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANTS
HEREIN TO NOT TO UNDERTAKE REPAIRS AND NOT TO OCCUPY THE
BUILDING UNLESS THERE IS A DECLARATION FROM THE CIVIL COURT
IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS WA COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against judgment

dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.33548/2019, by which the writ petition preferred by

the appellants has been disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that relief

has been granted to the appellant by the learned Single

Judge. However, the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned

order only to the extent insofar as direction not to occupy the

building is concerned. When a query in this regard was put to

the learned counsel for respondent, learned counsel for

respondent submits that they have no objection if the

aforesaid direction is modified.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in

the facts of the case, the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge insofar as it pertains to the direction

to the appellant not to occupy the building is concerned, the

same is hereby modified and the appellant is permitted to

occupy the building, subject to the result of pending litigation

between the parties.

To the aforesaid extent, order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.33548/2019 is modified. In the result,

the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RR