Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vishwanath vs Sri. Narayanachar G.L on 6 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
MFA No. 5011 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5011 OF 2014 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAN PILLAI
R/AT NO.466/56/15/1/F,
GAYATHRIPURA,
GARVEBHAVIPALYA,
MADIWALA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH COURT
1. SRI. NARAYANACHAR G.L
OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O SRI. G.S. LAINGAPPACHAR
R/AT NO. 79, "BHAVANA"
GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA
VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
SINCE DEAD
REPRESNTED BY HIS LR'S
1(A) SMT MAHALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE NARAYANACHAR, G.L.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
MFA No. 5011 of 2014
R/AT NO.79, BAVANA,
GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA
VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 068
1(B) M.S. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O LATE NARAYANACHAR G.L.
WORKING AT SHRISTI SPECIAL ACADEMY
SY.20, JATTIPALYA,
CHANNENAHALLI, 20TH KM,
OFF MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562130
2. SRI. NAGESH KUMAR. G.N
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANACHAR G.L
R/AT NO. 79, "BHAVANA" GAYATHRIPURA,
GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE,
BOMMANAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H T NATARAJ ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B) & R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/O R3 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 28.06.2014 PASSED ON MISCELLANEOUS NO.
569/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
FILED U/O 39 R.2A OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
MFA No. 5011 of 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 in
Miscellaneous No.569/2011 challenging the order dated
28.06.2014 by the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, which is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 CPC,
thereby, it was held that appellant had violated the order of
status-quo. Thus, the appellant/respondent No.1 is held guilty
of disobedience of the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in
O.S.No.6290/2006 and awarded civil imprisonment for a term
of 30 days.
2. The respondents herein have filed suit in
O.S.No.6290/2006 for mandatory injunction against appellant
herein to remove unauthorized construction put up on the
southern side boundary line of suit schedule 'A' property to the
extent of 2'x26' feet and also for permanent injunction.
3. During the pendency of suit, trial court has granted
the interim order on 17.07.2006 to maintain status-quo by
both the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of property
measuring 2'x26' feet. It is the allegation made by the
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
respondents herein that appellant has started to put up
construction over the first floor of the building in violation of
order of status-quo granted on 17.07.2006 and completed the
construction on the first floor. Therefore, the respondents
herein have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w
151 of CPC praying to hold that the appellant is guilty of
violation of the order of status-quo granted by the Court and
accordingly, said application is registered as Miscellaneous
No.569/2011. The trial court has received the evidence. The
respondent No.1 herein is examined as PW1 and got marked
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondents therein are
examined as RW1 and RW2.
4. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on
this miscellaneous petition has held that appellant is guilty of
violation of the order of status-quo and as such, awarded civil
imprisonment for a term of 30 days at the cost of respondents
herein.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by
the time order of status-quo was granted, the appellant had
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
constructed the ground floor and also put up mould on the
ground floor and when the appellant started construction on
the first floor, at that time, the order of status-quo was
granted. Soon after granting the order of status-quo, the
appellant stopped construction on the first floor and till today
there is no construction by the appellant for putting further
construction on the first floor. Therefore, the appellant has not
violated any order of status-quo and also produced
photographs dated 23.01.2024 in this regard and submitted
that appellant has not made any further construction and thus,
he has obeyed the order of status-quo in the suit.
6. It is further submitted that in the course of cross-
examination the respondents therein admitted that after
obtaining the order of status-quo the appellant has not put up
further construction. Further submitted that in the petition
itself the respondents have contended that by the time of filing
the suit, the construction of ground floor was already
completed and by the time order of status-quo was granted,
there was construction on the first floor. Therefore, submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
soon after passing the order of status-quo the appellant has
stopped further construction on the first floor and till today it is
under the stage of construction as on the stage of passing
order of status-quo. Hence, the appellant has not violated
order of status-quo, but due to improper appreciation of
evidence on record it has resulted in erroneous order being
passed.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondents justified the order passed by the trial court. He
submitted that even after communication of the order of
status-quo, the appellant has started construction and hence,
he is guilty of disobedience of the order of status-quo, which is
correctly appreciated by the trial court. Therefore, prays to
dismiss the appeal.
8. Upon hearing both the sides, following points would
arise for consideration:
(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, respondent No.1 herein
proves the fact that after granting the interim
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
order of status quo on 17.07.2006 the appellant
started construction of first floor and completed
the construction, thus, he is guilty of disobedience
of order of status quo?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the
case the order passed by the trial court requires
interference by this Court?
9. Admittedly, the order of status-quo was granted on
17.07.2006. Upon perusing the averments made in the Misc.
No.569/2011 invoking provision under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w
151 of CPC, in the attempt of saying that the appellant has
violated the order of status-quo, in the petition itself the
respondent No.1 herein has stated that it is alleged that
appellant got completed the construction of the ground floor
over the suit schedule 'B' property. Therefore, it is the
contention of respondent No.1 that by the time passing the
order of status-quo the appellant has got completed the
construction of structure on the ground floor. It is not the
grievance of the respondent No.1 that after granting interim
order of status-quo the appellant has constructed the ground
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
floor. In this regard, when the evidence on record is
appreciated the respondent No.1 being PW1, in the cross-
examination admitted that he has only grievance of putting up
construction over the first floor. Since there was an order of
status-quo to both the parties to maintain position as on the
date of the order, thereafter the appellant has not put up
construction. This is an admission given by the respondent
No.1/PW1 in the cross-examination in Page No.2, but this is
not correctly appreciated by the trial court. When PW1
categorically admitted in the cross-examination that soon after
passing an order of status-quo, the appellant has not
proceeded further for construction. Therefore, there is no
disobedience of the order of status-quo by the
appellant/respondent No.1.
10. Further, this Court on 22.01.2024 has directed the
appellant/respondent No.1 to produce the recent photographs
of the first floor premises. Accordingly, the appellant has
produced the photographs along with memo on 24.01.2024
that there was no construction on the floor except pillars,
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
which was put before passing the order of status quo. Upon
perusal of the said photographs produced in compliance of
order of this Court shows but the fact that there was no
construction made on the first floor of 'B' schedule property. It
is submitted that the concrete pillars on the first floor were
erected before passing of order but of status-quo, but soon
after passing the order of status-quo was passed further
construction was stopped. These photographs prove the fact
that there was no construction on the first floor. Therefore,
considering these two factors in the cross-examination PW1
himself admitted that after passing the order of status-quo
there was no construction on the first floor and also it is
corroborated by the photographs produced by the appellant.
Hence, it is proved that there is no violation of order of status-
quo granted by the trial court. The trial court failed to
appreciate the evidence in this regard properly resulted in
erroneous order being passed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is
answered in the negative and Point No.2 is answered in the
affirmative. Hence, the order passed by the trial court requires
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9686
interference by this Court. Therefore, the order passed by the
trial court is set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 28.06.2014 passed by IX
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-5) in Miscellaneous
No.569/2011, is set aside.
(iii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
DR
