Disposed

Sri Syed Asad Ahmed v. Sri B D Pattabhiraman

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/5475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals filed under MPC Act against interlocutory orders granting interim injunctions in a civil suit concerning electrical installation, the High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within four months without relying on affidavits filed by government officers in pending High Court proceedings, as the underlying dispute requires full evidence at the trial.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the underlying suit expeditiously within four months.

Sri Syed Asad Ahmed Vs Sri B D Pattabhiraman — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

M.F.A. NO. 5475 OF 2022 C/W.

¶8

M.F.A.NO.5460/2022(CPC)

¶9

IN M.F.A. NO. 5475 OF 2022:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. SYED ASAD AHMED S/O. SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.21/1, HALL ROAD RICHARDSON TOWN BANGALORE -560005

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W. SRI. MOHAMMAD NIWAZ S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. B. D. PATTABHIRAMAN S/O. LATE T. M. D. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO.001, GROUND FLOOR EAST HALL APARTMENTS NO.21, RICHARDS TOWN BANGALORE -560005.

¶17

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NO.1, N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU -560002.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE K. G. HALLI, SUB DIVISION ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU -560005.

¶20

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY ROBERSTON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN NEAR SINDHI COLONY SIGNAL BENGALURU-560005. BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY).

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SR. ADV. A/W. SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3; SRI. M.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R4)

¶23

MFA FILED U/O.41 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.25632/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, (CCH-73), ALLOWING IA NO.2/2022 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶24

IN M.F.A.NO.5460/2022:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. SYED ASAD AHMED S/O. SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.21/1, HALL ROAD RICHARDSON TOWN BANGALORE -560005

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶29

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W. SRI. MOHAMMAD NIWAZ S., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. B. D. PATTABHIRAMAN S/O. LATE T. M. D. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO.001, GROUND FLOOR EAST HALL APARTMENTS NO.21, RICHARDS TOWN BANGALORE -560005.

¶32

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NO.1, N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU -560002.

¶33

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶34

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE K. G. HALLI, SUB DIVISION ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU -560005.

¶35

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY ROBERSTON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN NEAR SINDHI COLONY SIGNAL BENGALURU-560005. BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY).

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SR. ADV. A/W. SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3; R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶39

MFA IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.25632/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, (CCH-73), ALLOWING IA NO.3/2022 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

Being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022 in O.S.No.25632/2022 dated 29.06.2022, the appellant/defendant No.1 is before this Court.

¶44

Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit seeking following reliefs:

¶45

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree of:

¶46

(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1 his workmen and others from erecting or Completing the Electrical Installation in respect of the Suit Schedule, D.G.Set and use the same in any manner whatsoever.

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶48

(b) Mandatory Injunction, Directing the Defendant No.1 and his workmen to Remove the Suit Schedule Electrical Installation/D.G.Set from its present place abutting the Western wall of the Plaintiff's Property.

¶49

(c) Award costs of this Suit and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the above case, in the interest of Justice and Equity.

¶50

Plaintiff had filed I.A.No.2/2022 seeking Temporary Injunction restraining defendant No.1 from completing the electrical installation, operating and generating electricity from the DG Set, pending disposal of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.21, Hall Road, Richards Town, Bangalore - 560 005 and he has entered into development agreement and an apartment was constructed. The plaintiff is staying in flat No.001 in the said apartment. Defendant No.1, who is neighbor on the Western Side of his apartment has violated the sanctioned plan and license granted to him and in that regard, proceedings were initiated, which is pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Writ Petitions are also filed. It

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶52

is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant is trying to encroach upon the plantiff's wall and fixing a DG set and also complete the electrical wiring and causing noise and air pollution and the connection has not yet been connected on account of the orders of the Court. The trial Court had granted injunction as sought for, by observing that defendant No.1 continued to operate the said electrical installation for electrical component or DG set or otherwise, it would seriously affect the right of the plaintiff to enjoy his property peacefully. Hence, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of the convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff rather than defendant No.1 and if the order is not granted, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Accordingly, the Court had granted injunction and has made the injunction absolute and on an application filed by the defendant to vacate the said order i.e., I.A.No.3/2022. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court.

¶53

When this matter had come up on 18.08.2022, stay was granted by the co-ordinate bench of this Court on the injunction granted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, on 13.12.2022, the co-ordinate bench had directed respondent

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶55

No.4 - Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM to inspect the suit schedule property about location of indoor electrical transformer and file affidavit disclosing (i) whether the unit is already in use and (ii) whether location was as per the choice of appellant and also (iii) whether there is any other suitable place for installation. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the Officer inspected the premises, no notice was given to the plaintiff and the Officer files an affidavit before this Court stating that already the electrical connection is given to the said unit and they want to file their objection to the said report.

¶56

Learned Senior counsel Sri. Padmanabha V. Mahale, appearing for the appellant/Defendant No.1 submits that already they have installed the unit and electricity connection is also given and they have been operating it. It is submitted that, now the case is coming up for evidence of defendant and a direction may be given to the Court below, to dispose of the matter in the interest of both the parties.

¶57

Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Suresh S. Lokre,

¶58

appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that, after the stay order was granted by this Court, they have installed

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶60

the unit and also electricity connection is given. It is submitted that the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), BESCOM, indicates suppression and misrepresentation of facts and they would file their objections to that. It is further submitted that in clear violation of the injunction order and taking advantage of an order passed by this Court, they have proceeded further and it is nothing but floating the orders of the Court.

¶61

Having heard the learned Senior Counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for bare injunction. The relief sought by the plaintiff is to restrain the defendants from completing the electrical installation, operating and generating electricity from the DG set in respect of the suit schedule property in any manner, whatsoever. While considering the said application, the Court has to necessarily look into whether the said unit is to be installed, what is the right of the plaintiff and whether the defendant has to be restrained from doing it. Interim injunction is granted in the

¶62

year 2022 and till 2024, the appeal arising out of the Interlocutory Order is pending before this Court and the suit is now coming up for the defendant's evidence. Co-ordinate bench

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶64

of this Court has directed Assistant Executive Engineer to file an affidavit and now there is an objection by the plaintiff with regard to the said affidavit before this Court.

¶65

In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to go in to the Advocate Commissioner's report for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The parties have led their evidence before the Trial Court. The trial Court while considering the suit, shall not take into consideration the report or any of the affidavit that was filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM before this Court and parties have to substantiate their respective cases by adducing the evidence. The Interim order is passed by the Court in 2022 and the same is continuing from thereon. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The suit is of the year 2022, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months.

¶68

Parties are at liberty to raise their respective pleas before trial Court. All contentions are left open.

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:30627 MFA No. 5475 of 2022 C/W. MFA No.5460 of 2022

¶70

10 -

¶71

With the above observation the appeal stands disposed of .

¶72

In MFA No.5460/2022 - filed by the defendants, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in MFA No.5475/2022, no orders needs to be passed in MFA No.5460/2022. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.

¶73

All IA’s in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶74

Sd/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶75

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Ct: SNN

Sri Syed Asad Ahmed v. Sri B D Pattabhiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Asad Ahmed v. Sri B D Pattabhiraman

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. Swamy H.J., Vs Smt. Sanjana G L

Sri Sebastian Bunty D Vs Smt T N Supritha

Sri. Balaji Rao .T.R., Vs Kumari. Jhanavi

Mr S Vinod Martin Vs Mrs M Shalini

Mr.Rushabh J Soni Vs Mrs.Depika Shekhawat

Smt Ashwini C Vs Sri Venkataravanappa v