Sri. H. C. Jayaram vs Sri. Arputha Raj. S
2024 Latest Caselaw 332 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. H. C. Jayaram vs Sri. Arputha Raj. S on 4 January, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:484
                                                      MFA No. 7401 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7401 OF 2023 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. H. C. JAYARAM,
                         S/O LATE CHIKKAPULLAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

                   2.    SMT. RADHAMMA,
                         W/O H.C. JAYARAM,
                         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

                   3.    SMT. JAYASHREE,
                         D/O H.C. JAYARAM,
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

                   4.  SRI. LOHITH,
                       S/O H. C. JAYARAM,
                       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                       ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 99,
Digitally signed       RENUKA NILAYA, TCP LAYOUT,
by SHARANYA T
                       2ND CROSS, HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF               HORAMAVU POST, BANGALORE - 560 043.
KARNATAKA                                                  ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. MOHAN S, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    SRI. ARPUTHA RAJ. S,
                         S/O SELVA RAJ S,
                         AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                         PRESENTLY REISIDING AT NO. 292,
                         NEW BEL CIRCLE, BEL COLONY,
                         JALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 013,
                         REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND GPA HOLDER
                         SMT. C.A. SUNITHA.
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:484
                                        MFA No. 7401 of 2023




2.   THE COMMISSIONER,
     BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
     BANGALORE - 560 002.

3.   THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     HORAMAVU SUB DIVISION,
     WARD NO. 25, BBMP,
     BANGALORE - 560 043.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. N. GURUVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
2 IN O.S.NO. 5773/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE           XII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH -27),
BENGALURU CITY, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN GRANTING E-PARTE
MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

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

Heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and

learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The present MFA is filed against the Interim Order

granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.5773/2023, wherein it

restrained defendant Nos.1 to 4, their agents, servants or

anybody acting through them, from blocking the road existing

in the suit B schedule property or any way interfering with the

NC: 2024:KHC:484

peaceful possession and enjoyment of road existing in the B

schedule property for ingress and egress to the suit A schedule

property. Further, the direction was given that defendant

Nos.5 and 6 is directed to remove the obstruction, if any

caused by defendant Nos.1 to 4 by fixing the stone to the road

described as application B schedule property.

3. Being aggrieved by the said Order the present

appeal is filed and this Court also granted stay in respect of

second portion of the Order directing defendant Nos.5 and 6 to

remove obstructions, if any caused by defendant Nos.1 to 4 by

fixing the stone to the road described as application B schedule

property.

4. Learned counsel for appellant also submits that

they have filed the objections to I.A. and counsel for

respondents submits that they have also filed an application to

vacate the stay granted by this Court, in respect of later portion

of the Order passed by the Trial Court. The matter is pending

for consideration on merits before the Trial Court on I.A. The

present appeal is only against the Interim Order, when the

pleadings have been completed and also counsels submit that

the Commissioner also filed a report making the spot inspection

NC: 2024:KHC:484

and the same is also pending for consideration. In view of the

said submission, pleadings have been completed and the

Commissioner is appointed and the Commissioner has filed a

report. The Trial Court has to consider the application on merits

and also consider the Commissioner's report and consider the

grievances of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. Whether

the road is blocked? and whether there is an existence of road

and all these disputes has to be considered by the Trial Court

while considering the Interim Application on merits, which is

pending for consideration on merits.

With these observations the appeal is disposed off.

The Trial Court is directed to consider the application

within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NJ

CT: BHK