Mrs. Thayamma vs Mrs. Nagaveni
2023 Latest Caselaw 5742 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:29399
                                                         MFA No. 4750 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4750 OF 2023 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    MRS. THAYAMMA
                         W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

                   2.    MR SHANTHA KUMAR
                         S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

                   3.    MR ANIL KUMAR
                         S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
                         ALL ARE R/AT NO 173
                         NEAR ANJANAPURA CIRCLE
                         GOLLAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
                         BENGALURU 560108.
Digitally signed                                                ...APPELLANTS
by
DHANALAKSHMI       (BY SRI. RAKSHITH R.,ADVOCATE)
MURTHY
Location: High     AND:
Court of
Karnataka
                   MRS. NAGAVENI
                   W/O MR G L RAMASWAMY
                   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                   R/AT NO 34, GOLLAHALLI
                   KANAKAPURA CROSS ROAD
                   ANAJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
                   BENGALURU-560108
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. T.R. RAMESH., ADVOCATE AND
                   SRI. G.S. SURESH, ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:29399
                                             MFA No. 4750 of 2023




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
1 IN O.S.NO. 832/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU,      ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CPC.

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

This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the

Civil Procedure Code by the defendants challenging the

order passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No.832/2023 filed under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 before the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dated

01.07.2023, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has

filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Along with the

plaint, she has also filed an application under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the

defendants or their agents from putting up further

NC: 2023:KHC:29399 MFA No. 4750 of 2023

construction in the 'B' Suit Schedule property till the

disposal of the suit. The trial court, after hearing the

parties, allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by

the same, the defendants are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/defendants has contended that the defendants'

property is not adjacent property of the suit schedule

property. Their property is away from the suit schedule

property. At no point of time, they are interfering with the

suit schedule property and they are putting up the

construction only in their property and they are not putting

up any construction in the suit schedule property. Hence,

he sought for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff sought for

injunction only in respect of the 'B' suit schedule property

which belongs to the plaintiff. The trial court also directed

not to put up any construction in the 'B' suit schedule

property. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:29399 MFA No. 4750 of 2023

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused

the impugned order.

7. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and

injunction and he has filed an application under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from

putting up further construction in 'B' suit schedule

property. The trial court granted injunction restraining the

defendants from putting up further construction only in

respect of 'B' suit schedule property. Since the defendants

are claiming the property which is not adjacent to the suit

schedule property, they have no grievance for injunction

order passed by the trial court. Hence, there is no error in

the order passed by the trial court.

8. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

9. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as

expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are

directed to co-operate for early disposal.

NC: 2023:KHC:29399 MFA No. 4750 of 2023

10. In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending

applications stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CM