Karnataka High Court
M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd vs K C Rajaram on 5 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
MFA No. 4902 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4902 OF 2017 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4903 OF 2017 (CPC)
IN MFA No. 4902/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. VASWANI WHITEFIELD PROJECTS (P) LTD.,
(EARLIER KNOWN AS VASWANI
TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT LTD)
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT VASWANI VICTORIA,
NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560047
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed ARUN A. ADVANI.
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.MANASA B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.C.RAJARAM
MAJOR,
S/O LATE K.C.REDDY,
R/AT NO.18/3,
18TH CROSS,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560070.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
MFA No. 4902 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017
2. KAMAN HOLIDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEING AT COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.S711, SOUTH BLOCK,
MANIPA CENTRE,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560042
BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.K.S.SUNIL GUKPTA.
3. K.S.SUNIL GUPTA
MAJOR
KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.S711, SOUTH BLOCK,
MANIPA CENTRE,
DICKENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560042
BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.K.S.SUNIL GUKPTA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R3;
SRI R.A.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.9024/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 55TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-56),
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 4903/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. VASWANI WHITEFIELD PROJECTS (P) LTD
(EARLIER KNOWN AS VASWANI
TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT LTD.,)
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
MFA No. 4902 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT "VASWANI VICTORIA"
NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 047
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
ARUN A. ADVANI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MANASA B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAMAN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO. S711,
SOUTH BLOCK MANIPAL CENTRE
DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 042
BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. K.S.SUNIL GUPTA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.2835/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 55TH ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
MFA No. 4902 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4903 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsels for the respondents.
2. These two miscellaneous appeals are filed against
dismissal of I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.9024/2014, wherein
temporary injunction is sought restraining the defendants from
interfering with the plaintiff's possession of suit property and
with plaintiff's construction work in suit property by dismantling
or removing metal sheeted barricade/compound enclosing the
suit schedule property and so also in O.S.No.2835/2016,
wherein I.A.No.1 was allowed restraining the appellant herein
from putting up construction on the suit schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties, until disposal of this suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that suit was filed in 2014 and ad-interim order was granted by
the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.9024/2010 and the same
was in force and till dismissal of application, the plaintiff
enjoyed the interim-relief from 2014 to 2017 and he had put up
construction. In the other suit in O.S.No.2835/2016, injunction
was granted in 2017. Learned counsel also would submit that
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
apartments are constructed and Completion Certificate is also
issued and purchasers are in occupation of the respective
apartments.
4. Learned counsels for the respondents also would
contend that construction was made during the pendency of the
suits and the appellant cannot claim any equity. Learned
counsel also would submit that the appellant also filed
application for amendment and sought for amendment in the
suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 for possession in view of construction
made by the appellant herein.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsels for the respondents, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that apartment is
constructed in the property belonging to them and the
respondents are also claiming their right in respect of their
property and such property is not in existence at all. Learned
counsel for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court
photographs and contend that no such property in existence on
the southern side of the property of the appellant and
Occupancy Certificate was also issued in 2021 itself. Learned
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
counsel appearing for the respondents also claim that their
property is on the southern side of the property of the plaintiff
and they have encroached portion of the property and they
have put up construction and sought for the relief of
possession, apart from the relief of declaration.
6. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeals
as well as the fact that the appellant has enjoyed the interim
relief from 2014 to 2017 and respondents also claim the relief
of possession, question of passing restraint order for putting up
construction does not arise. Hence, the order impugned passed
by the Trial Court in O.S.No.2835/2016 requires interference
and the same has to be set aside and in view of seeking of
relief of possession, if the respondents succeed in the suit for
the relief of declaration and possession, then the appellant has
to handover vacant possession to the extent and the same is
also subject to proof after leading evidence and matter requires
adjudication,.
7. It is also not in dispute that suit in
O.S.No.9024/2014 was filed and the same is one decade old
and another suit in O.S.No.2835/2016 is eight years old.
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
Admittedly, both the suits are before the same Court and the
very same Presiding Officer has passed independent order in
both the suits. When such being the case, taking into note of
the fact that one suit is of the year 2014 and another suit is of
the year 2016, a direction can be given to the parties to assist
the Trial Court for disposal of the suits within a time bound
period of one year from today.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeals are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed in
O.S.No.9024/2014 on I.A.No.1 is set aside
granting the relief of temporary injunction
directing the defendants not to interfere with
possession and also the order passed in
O.S.No.2835/2016 on I.A.No.1 is set aside, in
view of the fact that already relief is sought
for possession.
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of both
the suits within a time bound period of one
year from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
NC: 2024:KHC:44382
(iv) The Registry is directed to send the copy of
this order to the concerned Court, forthwith.
The respective counsels are also directed to
produce the copy of this order before the
Trial Court to enable the Trial Court to
dispose the suits within the stipulated period.
(v) The respective counsel and the parties are
directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of
both the suits within a time bound period of
one year.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
