The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by plaintiffs against the rejection of an interim injunction application. The court held that since the construction on the disputed property was nearly complete, the injunction application was infructuous, leading to the disposal of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3636/2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG, ADVOCATE) AND:
CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2770/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO. 23), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S.
No.2770/2020 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the civil Court’ ]. The civil Court by the impugned common order dated 26.03.2022 has rejected the appellants’ application [I.A. No.1] under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, ‘the CPC’ ] but certain other applications, including the application for amendment of the plaint, are allowed.
The appellants' suit, even as originally filed, was for mandatory injunction against the respondents to remove the alleged illegal structure put up in the plaint schedule-B property which is described by the appellants as conservancy lane. The appellants, with the commencement of the suit, have filed the application [I.A. No.1] for temporary injunction against the first and second respondents from constructing or putting up any structure in the schedule-B property. The appellants have later amended the plaint to include the prayer for declaration that the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.10830/2006 [earlier suit between the appellants and the respondents] would not bind their rights insofar as the schedule-B property.
It is undisputed that the respondents, who had commenced the construction including the schedule-B property even before the commencement of the suit, have now almost completed the construction. If this
factum remains undisputed, the application would indeed be rendered infructuous and in that event, no interference can be called for in this appeal. If the appellants succeed in the suit, the construction put up on the subject property would have to take the consequence of such decision.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/JUDGE
AN/-
Smt A. Vinovathi Bai
Smt. Parvathi Bai
Sri A. Babu Rao
Sri A. Gundu Rao
Smt. Yamuna Bai
Brigade Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Corporation
B.M. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
