Disposed

Mr.Pvr Sai Kiran v. Mr.Biswajit Kumar Choudhary

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2022MFA/4523/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This MFA appealed an order dismissing a temporary injunction application. The court directed the appellant to deposit maintenance charges to prevent disconnection of amenities in an apartment complex, rejecting arguments regarding the defendants' authority as an unregistered association.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit monthly maintenance charges in trial court to prevent disconnection of essential services and amenities.

Mr.Pvr Sai Kiran Vs Mr.Biswajit Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.4523 OF 2021 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. PVR Sai Kiran, S/o Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 38 years, R/at Flat No.430, ‘B’ Block, “SLS Signature”, Vidya Vikas School Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubesanahalli, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560103.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri H.V.Harish, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. Biswajit Kumar Choudhary, Aged about 33 years, R/at Flat No.G-30 “SLS Signature”, Vidya Vikas School Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubesanahalli, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103.

¶12

Mr. Subhadip Basu Roy Chowdhury, S/o Swapan Basu Roy Chowdhury,

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

Aged about 36 years, R/at Flat No.212, “SLS Signature”, Vidya Vikas School Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubesanahalli, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103.

¶15

Mr. Siba Shankar Rout, S/o Gagan Chandra Rout, Aged about 39 years, R/at Flat No.312, “SLS Signature”, Vidya Vikas School Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubesanahalli, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103.

¶16

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava S/o U.P.Lal, Aged about 42 years, R/at Flat NO.G-301, “SLS Signature”, Vidya Vikas School Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubesanahalli, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103.

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Jose K Sebastian, Advocate for R1 to R4)

¶19

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 25.08.2021, passed on I.A.No.I and III in O.S.No.2115/2021, on the file of

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

the LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-68) rejecting IA No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and allowing IA No.III filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶22

This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri H.V.Harish, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jose K Sebastian, learned counsel for caveators/respondents 1 to 4.

¶25

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city (CCH-68) in O.S.No.2115/2021, dismissing the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

¶26

In a suit for bare injunction against the defendants, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1

¶27

:: 4 ::

¶28

and 2 CPC to restrain the defendants from

¶29

disconnecting the essential services. In the first instance the trial Court granted exparte order of temporary injunction and thereafter the defendants made an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating the said order. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed IA No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed IA No.III filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.

¶30

The plaintiff is the owner of an apartment in SLS Signature apartments and that the defendants 1 to 4 are also owners of the other apartments. The plaintiff’s main case is that the defendants are unauthorizedly collecting maintenance charges from all the apartment owners. According to law, an association of apartment owners must be formed. No association has been formed. The defendants have no

¶31

authority to collect maintenance charges. On the

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

other hand, defendants 1 to 4 contend that they are the office bearers of an association which has come into existences according to law. The defendants have contended so in the written statement, but it appears that they have not produced any document in proof of an association having come into existence according to law.

¶34

The order sheet of this appeal dated 12.10.2021 indicates that the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/without prejudice to his rights to see that the essential services to his apartment is not disconnected. Accordingly, the appellant deposited Rs.1,00,000/in the office of this Court on 22.10.2021.

¶35

It is to be stated that whether or not, the defendants are the office bearers of a legally constituted association of the apartment owners, the appellant has to pay maintenance charges every month. If he does not pay, other apartment

¶36

:: 6 ::

¶37

owners will have to suffer. In fact the Trial Court

¶38

has said that since the appellant is using the amenities, he has to pay maintenance charges. This observation of the Trial Court cannot be said to be wrong. The appellant has to pay charges for the amenities that he is using. In this view, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶39

The appellant is hereby directed to deposit monthly maintenance charges in the trial Court without fail for every month till disposal of the suit. This deposit is of-course without prejudice to the rights of the appellant.

¶40

If there is any arrears, it shall also be deposited within fifteen (15) days from today. The appellant shall also file a memo of calculation regarding payments that he has made before this Court and the Trial Court. If the deposit is made

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

regularly by the appellant, the essential services and amenities shall not be disconnected.

¶43

The appeal stands disposed of .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Kmv/-

Mr.Pvr Sai Kiran v. Mr.Biswajit Kumar Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Pvr Sai Kiran v. Mr.Biswajit Kumar Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Guruswamy Vs Shri Puttasubbappa

Shivashankara Reddy N Vs R Srikanth

Sri T R Narendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar Vs the Chief Commissioner

V Krishnamurthy Vs H v Nagaraj

Mr Manjunatha S Vs Mr R P M Subramanyam