Disposed

Sri S R Srinivasa v. M/S Gunnvardhak Shwetamber Mutipujak Jain Sangh

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/7166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for interim injunction regarding alleged construction of a Jain Temple. The court disposed of the appeal based on the respondent's undertaking to comply with regulations.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of based on the respondent's undertaking. Liberty reserved to any party to report the undertaking before the trial court and seek disposal of the main suit.

Sri S R Srinivasa Vs M/S Gunnvardhak Shwetamber… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7166 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7166 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI S.R. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE S.R. GUPTA,

¶7

SMT. USHA SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI. S.R.SRINIVASA, BOTH R/A NO.58/1, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶8

…APPELLANTS

¶9

[BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

M/s. GUNNVARDHAK SHWETAMBER MUTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH, REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.81/2, 2^ND FLOOR, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004. REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR. DILIP B. PRIGAL.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

[BY SRI. S. BASAVARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. BHANU H.M., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶15

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.08.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.991/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND C/c. XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.44), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 7166 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Challenging order dated 29.08.2022 passed by LIX

¶21

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and C/c XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-44) in O.S.no.991/2020, on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, this appeal is filed.

¶22

Appellants herein were plaintiffs, while respondent

¶23

herein was defendant. They will be referred to as such, herein.

¶24

O.S.no.991/2020 was filed for following reliefs:

¶25

Grant an order of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant their agents, their henchmen, or any person claiming on their behalf from rising construction of a Jain Temple over Schedule 'B' property in violation of BBMP and BDA byelaws etc."

¶26

In said suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.no.1 for temporary

¶27

injunction, restraining defendant from interfering in any manner with peaceful possession and enjoyment and occupation of suit schedule 'A' property including construction

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 7166 of 2022

¶30

of any structures over suit schedule 'B' property and to grant

¶31

an ex-parte ad-interim order till appearance of defendant.

¶32

Suit and application was opposed by defendant by filing written statement.

¶33

On consideration, trial Court passed impugned order dismissing application.

¶34

It was submitted that main controversy between parties with regard to alleged construction of Jain Temple over 'B' schedule property by defendant, which would be in contravention of BBMP and BDA regulations as well as plaintiffs easementary rights of light and air. It is further submitted that construction sought to be put up by defendant was also in violation of sanctioned building plan.

¶35

During course of hearing, learned counsel for defendant submitted that defendant is not constructing temple as apprehended by plaintiffs and is carrying out construction work strictly as per sanctioned building plan and same would not be in violation of any BBMP or BDA regulations/byelaws.

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 7166 of 2022

¶38

In response, learned counsel for plaintiffs

¶39

submitted that if assertion by defendant is placed on record then plaintiffs may not pursue and same would also settle entire dispute between parties.

¶40

Accordingly, defendant filed affidavit, wherein

¶41

defendant under took as follows:

¶42

"3. I submit that, the Respondent in the above named appeal hereby undertakes not to construct Jain temple over the plaint schedule 'B' Property in violation of BBMP and BDA byelaws."

¶43

11. In response to same, plaintiffs have filed a memo

¶44

stating as under:

¶45

"The Appellants submit that the Respondent has filed an affidavit dated 05.12.2022 before this Hon'ble Court undertaking not to construct Jain Temple over B-Schedule property and that they will not violate the BBMP and BDA byelaws. In the event that the Appellants' rights are infringed in any manner whatsoever by any of the acts of the Respondent/Defendant, the Appellants reserve their rights and liberties to initiate such action as may be appropriate and suitable and avail all such remedies that are available in the eyes of law. The present memo may be taken on record and the present Appeal may be disposed of, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

¶47

MFA No. 7166 of 2022

¶48

Taking above undertaking and reserving liberty to

¶49

plaintiff to avail suitable remedies, appeal is disposed of.

¶50

Above undertaking and memo would be sufficient to

¶51

seek for disposal of suit. Liberty reserved to either of parties to report same before trial Court and seek disposal of suit.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

GRD

Sri S R Srinivasa v. M/S Gunnvardhak Shwetamber Mutipujak Jain Sangh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S R Srinivasa v. M/S Gunnvardhak Shwetamber Mutipujak Jain Sangh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G K Suresh Vs G T Krishna Reddy

Sri Thammaiah Vs Smt Muthamma

Sabira Banu Javeed Vs Union of India

Sri Vinod Vs Sri Manish Kumar Verma

Smt. Annammakrupa Vs J.S.Augustine Reddy

Smt Ellamma Vs Sri K v Prasad