Karnataka High Court
Sri H C Jayaram vs Sri Arputha Raj S on 28 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8524
MFA No. 430 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H.C. JAYARAM
S/O LATE CHIKKA PULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. SMT. RADHAMMA
W/O H.C. JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
(WHEREAS THE RESPONDENT NO.2
BEFORE TRIAL COURT HAS WRONGLY
SHOWN THE NAME OF SMT. RADHAMMA AS
SMT. SUMITHRA)
IN THE PLAINT AADHAR CARD IS PRODUCED
3. SMT. JAYASHREE
D/O H C JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4. SRI. LOHITH
Digitally S/O H.C. JAYARAM
signed by BS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RAVIKUMAR
Location:
HIGH ALL ARE R/A NO.99,
COURT OF RENUKA NILAYA, TCP LAYOUT,
KARNATAKA 2ND CROSS,
HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD,
HORAMAVU POST
BENGALURU - 560043.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MOHAN S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8524
MFA No. 430 of 2024
AND:
1. SRI. ARPUTHA RAJ S.,
S/O SELVA RAJ S.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.292
NEW BEL CIRCLE,
BEL COLONY, JALAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560013.
REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND
GPA HOLDER - SMT. C.A. SUNITHA
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BBMP, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION
WARD NO.25, BBMP
BENGALURU - 560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. GURUVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR /
RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 (VK
NOT FILED))
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
20.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.1 AND 7 IN O.S.NO.5773/2023 ON
THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, (CCH NO. 27), BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1
FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND DISMISSING
THE I.A.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8524
MFA No. 430 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S. No.5773/2023 on
the file of XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City, (henceforth referred to as the 'Trial Court')
have filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the
order dated 20.01.2024 in so far as it relates to allowing
I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff and dismissing I.A.No.7 filed
by defendant Nos.1 to 4.
2. When this appeal was listed for admission, the
learned senior counsel representing the appellants
submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in
M.F.A No.429/2024 today, the appellants / defendant
Nos.1 to 4 before the Trial Court shall voluntarily comply
with the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the Trial Court
on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.5773/2023. However, they
contend that this may not be treated as admission on the
part of defendant Nos.1 to 4 that the suit 'B' schedule
property exists and that it forms part of Sy. No.27 of
Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,
NC: 2024:KHC:8524
which belongs to the predecessor of the plaintiff. A memo
is filed to that effect.
3. In view of the memo filed, no further orders
need be passed in this appeal and this appeal is dismissed
as withdrawn. However, the appellants shall comply with
the impugned order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the Trial
Court on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.5773/2023 and ensure that
the obstruction laid on the suit 'B' schedule property is
removed forthwith. This shall, however, be subject to the
outcome of the suit in O.S. No.5773/2023 and shall not
be treated as an admission on the part of defendant Nos.1
to 4 about the existence of the suit 'B' schedule property
and that the suit 'B' schedule property formed part of Sy.
No.27 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru
East Taluk, which was conveyed to the predecessor of the
plaintiff. In view of the undertaking given by the
appellants, the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.
No.5773/2023 before the Trial Court for Police protection
to remove the obstruction and for punishing the defendant
NC: 2024:KHC:8524
Nos.1 to 4 for violating the interim order, shall stand
disposed off. However, if the defendant Nos.1 to 4 fail to
comply with this order within one week from today, the
plaintiff is entitled to seek revival of the application filed
for contempt and for police protection.
4. In view of disposal of this appeal, I.A.
No.1/2024 for stay does not arise for consideration and
the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
