Allowed

Majage Nijagunappa v. Mantri Alphyne Apartments Owners

Karnataka HC23 May 2022WP/31524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a homeowner against an apartment association and developers. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Trial Court to dispose of his application for a temporary injunction within one month. Additionally, the court stayed any disconnection of water or electricity supply until the application is decided.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to dispose of the interlocutory application for temporary injunction within one month; stayed water and electricity disconnection pending disposal.

Majage Nijagunappa Vs Mantri Alphyne… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31524 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAJAGE NIJAGUNAPPA S/O BHIMANNA MAJAGE OCC:RETD. JUDGE REP. BY HIS GPA/SPA HOLDER SHARAN N MAJAGE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS FLAT NO.C-505 MANTRI ALPYNE APARTMENTS BSK 5^TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . MANTRI ALPHYNE APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION(UNREGISTERED) REP. BY ITS SCRETARY K PRASHANT BHAT MANTRI ALPYNE APARTMENTS COMPLEX BSK 5^TH STAGE BENGALURU-560 061.

¶12

2 . MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

¶14

SMT. SNEHAL MANTRI HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.41, MANTRI HOUSE VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

3 . PROPCARE REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER DINESH R HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.41 MANTRI HOUSE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

….RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIJAY B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO LEARNED TRIAL COURT/JUDGE (XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-41) IN O.S.NO.5387/2019 TO CONSIDER THE IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-R FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND UNTIL SUMMONS BE SERVED ON THE RESPONDENTS STAY THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-1.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

¶22

for a mandamus directing the trial Court to dispose of

¶23

¶24

the application filed by him under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC vide Annexure-R.

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶26

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.4387/2019 against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction. The trial Court issued notice to the respondents and declined to grant an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶29

that the trial Court without considering the material on record has issued notice and declined to grant an ad-

¶30

¶31

interim order of temporary injunction. He further submits that respondent No.1 has no authority to cutoff water connection to the petitioner’s flat as the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- towards maintenance charges. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application seeking an order of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner is pending. The trial Court has not passed any order on the application. He further submits that if a direction is issued to the trial Court to dispose of the said application, the respondents have no objection to continue the order passed by this Court vide order dated 26.7.2019 till the disposal of the application.

¶33

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

¶35

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.5387/2019. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction. The trial Court declined to grant an ad-interim order of temporary injunction and hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶36

This Court vide order dated 26.7.2019 stayed the notice dated 20.7.2019 at Annexure-A and consequently DG power and water supply shall not be disconnected or stopped with or otherwise meddled with by respondent No.1. The said order is extended from time to time. Hence, if a direction is issued to the trial Court , no injustice would be caused to the petitioner.

¶37

In view of the same, the following order is passed :

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

¶41

ii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC vide Annexure-R in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

However, it is made clear that respondent No.1 shall not disconnect the DG power and water supply to the petitioner’s flat till the disposal of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶43

All the contentions of the parties are left open.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

Majage Nijagunappa v. Mantri Alphyne Apartments Owners

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majage Nijagunappa v. Mantri Alphyne Apartments Owners

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

Sri B Thippeswamy Vs State Bank of India

Ramee Sugar & Infrastructure Vs the Managing Director

K Shanthachanne Gowda Vs the Sagar Clinic

Smt. Pushpa Krishna Vs P Radhyshyam

M. Shamshu Khan @ M. Shamshu Sab Vs K. Gajendra

Sri. B. Revanna Vs Smt. Umadevi