Karnataka High Court
Mr Dandi Ravi Yadav Alias Dandi Ravi vs Mahaveer Bower Apartment Owners ... on 1 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
MFA No. 4811 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4811 OF 2024 (CPC-)
BETWEEN:
MR DANDI RAVI YADAV ALIAS DANDI RAVI
S/O LATE DANDI KOMARIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 86,
SBH COLONY, VENTURE-2, L B NAGAR,
SAROORNAGAR,
CHINTALAKUNTA
K V RANGA REDDY
DIST- TELANGANA-500074
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJ, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.B SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHAVEER BOWER APARTMENT
Digitally OWNERS ASSOCIATION
signed by
YAMUNA K L REG NO. DRB-S/SOR/316/2011-12
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
High Court MR. VENU GOPAL REDDY
of Karnataka 4TH MAIN, CHINNAPPANAHALLI,
MARTHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560037
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. SMT. N.K. NAGAVENI, MAJOR,
W/O LATE H. ANATHAHARAMAREDDY
RESIDING AT CMC NO.100,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANEKKUDI POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
MFA No. 4811 of 2024
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-564037.
3. SMT. M. DHEENA, MAJOR,
D/O LATE H.ANATHAHARAMAREDDY
RESIDING AT CMC NO. 100,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANEKKUDI POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-564037
4. SMT. SUMA REDDY, MAJOR,
D/O LATE. H. ANATHAHARAMAREDDY
RESIDING AT CMC NO.100,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANEKKUDI POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-564037.
5. SMT. SOUMYA REDDY, MAJOR,
W/O LATE H.ANATHAHARAMAREDDY
RESIDING AT CMC NO. 100,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANEKKUDI POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-564037.
6. SRI. SANDEEP REDDY, MAJOR,
W/O LATE.H.ANATHAHARAMAREDDY
RESIDING AT CMC NO.100,
CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANEKKUDI POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-564037.
7. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560002
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
MFA No. 4811 of 2024
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
11.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 4857/2024 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-25), ISSUING SUIT SUMMONS, EMERGENT
NOTICE OF I.A.NO.1, ETC.,
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed aggrieved by the issuance of emergent
notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to respondents/
defendants, without granting injunction, by proceedings dated
11.07.2024 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He has
filed the suit seeking a mandatory injunction against the
defendant No.1 - Association, restraining them from collecting
monthly maintenance from all the flat owners/occupants
residing at "Mahaveer Bower" as it is contrary to the provisions
of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and also to
pass a judgment and decree in the nature of permanent
injunction against the defendant No.7 from putting up any
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
further construction in Schedule 'B' property and restrain the
defendants No.2 to 6 permanently by way of mandatory
injunction from doing any kind of transactions with respect to
Schedule 'B' property permanently. In the said suit, I.A.No.1 is
filed seeking injunction, stating that the plaintiff is the bona
fide purchaser of two Flats in Block 'A' bearing Nos.209 in the
first floor and 409 in the third floor of the said Apartment.
3. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he has
purchased the said properties in the year 2004. The defendant
No.1 - Association is registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960, which is contrary to the law laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court. It is his further case that he
has some serious objection with respect to the handling of the
accounts and the same is pending consideration before the
appropriate Authority. The Association is not registered under
the specific law and they are collecting the maintenance fee
from the owners of the flat which is against the law. The office
bearers colluded with each other and are demolishing the entire
Block 'C', by throwing the law into air and without any prior
approval from the competent authority. They demolished the
building and now started to construct a structure without there
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
being any proper approval in terms of statutory clearance
which is in clear violation of law. The appellant herein had
raised concerns in this regard and had lodged a complaint with
the jurisdictional Police Station under the jurisdiction of the
BBMP and so far, no action has been taken. Hence, they sought
for an injunction, restraining the defendant No.1 - Association
from collecting the maintenance fee from the flat owners and
putting up any further construction in Block 'C' of the 'B'
Schedule property.
4. The Trial Court, by proceedings dated 11.07.2024 has
observed that at this stage the Court is not inclined to pass an
order and after hearing the defendants, the order can be
passed. The Court is inclined to hear the defendants before
passing the order. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before
this Court in this appeal.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff submits that a Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No.974/2009 and batch matters by its judgment
dated 06.11.2019 has laid down the law that the Apartment
Association has to be registered as per the provisions of the
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 but not under the
Societies Registration Act. Basing on this judgment, learned
Senior Counsel submits that, on the face of it, the defendant
No.1 - Association is registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act and that itself is illegal and they cannot be
permitted to collect the maintenance. It is submitted that now,
they are illegally demolishing the 'C' Block building without the
permission of the residents of the apartment and also without
obtaining any statutory permissions. The Trial Court ought to
have granted injunction, considering the illegality that is being
committed by the defendant No.1 - Association. The Court,
without considering all these aspects, has simply issued
emergent notice to the defendants without granting injunction.
This is a fit case where an ad interim injunction has to be
granted or else irreparable loss and hardship would be caused
to the plaintiff.
6. This Court having heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, had perused the entire
material placed before this Court. The injunction that is sought
is against the defendant No.1 - Association which is registered
contrary to the provisions of law. The contention of the Senior
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
Counsel is that, as the Association that is formed is in blatant
violation of law, they are not permitted to collect the
maintenance fee from the flat owners. With regard to the other
prayer of restraining the defendants from putting up any
further construction in the 'B' Schedule property, the Court had
ordered notice.
7. This is a case where the Apartment was constructed
long back and the plaintiff himself is staying in the said
Apartment right from the year 2004. As sought by the
appellant, without even ordering notice to the defendants, the
Court cannot direct the Apartment Association not to collect
any money from the occupants and also there cannot be any
injunction restraining the Apartment Association from making
any construction in respect of the 'B' Schedule property as
necessary material is not before the Court and this is not a case
where if injunction is not granted at this stage, there will be an
irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated to the plaintiff.
It is not the plaintiff alone who is residing in the Apartment and
this problem is a recent problem and there are other occupants
also in the Apartment. If an order of injunction, restraining the
Association from collecting maintenance is passed and if they
NC: 2024:KHC:30419
stop maintaining the Apartment, without any alternative
arrangement, it would cause hardship to the other occupants.
All these issues have to be considered before granting an
injunction.
8. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
Trial Court was right in issuing emergent notice and also that
before passing an order, the Court has to hear the defendants.
This is not a case where an ex-parte injunction can be granted.
9. It is submitted that the matter is coming up before
the Trial Court on 03.08.2024. The Court shall hear the
defendants and shall pass orders on this application, as
expeditiously as possible, without further delay.
10. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off.
All pending I.As., if any, in the appeal shall stand closed.
Sd/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BMV*
