Defendants in an injunction suit challenged interim orders restraining construction. They filed a memo undertaking to demolish 1½ feet of their building adjacent to the plaintiff's compound wall. Accepting the undertaking, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to seek trial court's assistance.
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 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT. NO. 14 1ST CROSS, VENUGOPAL NAGAR NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073 …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA SMT DEVAMMA Location: W/O MANJUNATH HIGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA R/O, NO.15, 1ST CROSS VENUGOPAL NAGAR NEAR ROCKLINE STUDIO DODDABIDARAKALLU BENGALURU-560 073 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.R.RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT B. ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE - E THAT THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2022 PASSED
BY II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 1014/2021 AND ORDER DATED 05/12/2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN M.A. NO. 44/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE -J.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER
The defendants in O.S No.1014/2021 on the file of II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru have filed this petition challenging an order dated 25.01.2022 by which they were restrained from putting up any construction on the western side of the suit property. They have also challenged an order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A No.44/2023.
2.(i) The suit in O.S No.1014/2021 was filed by the plaintiff for Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession in the suit schedule property. An application was filed by them for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up any construction on the western side of the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:45859 WP No. 1468 of 2024
(ii) The suit was contested by the defendants who contended that they were the owners of the property adjoining the suit schedule property and that they were putting up construction in the property owned and possessed by them. The application for interim injunction was also contested on the same lines.
(iii) The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendants, granted interim injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up construction on the western side of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The defendants challenged the said order before the Appellate Court in M.A No.44/2023 which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 05.12.2023. When this petition was listed for orders, the defendants / petitioners filed a memo of undertaking which reads as follows:
"The petitioners submits that, the above petition filed by challenging the order dated 25-1-2022 passed by the trail court on IA No. 1 U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC by restraining the Petitioners/Defendants from putting up the construction on the western side of the schedule property that is in site bearing 15 which is belongs to the plaintiff/ Respondent and MA 44/2023 filed against the aforesaid order which came to be
dismissed being aggrieved by the both the orders present WP filed.
It is submits that, it is case of the plaintiff that the defendants/ Petitioners put-up the construction in site No.14 which is adjacent to the plaintiff property without left any set back. Now the petitioners/ Defendants are undertake to demolish erected portion of the petitioners building 1½ of feet from the compound wall of the plaintiff property towards the western portion, if that is done then the grievance of the plaintiff is met with. Hence in order to resolve the issue the petitioners/Defendants voluntarily undertake and agree to demolish and renovate the building from 1 ½ of feet from the compound wall of the plaintiff/Respondent property. By considering the under taking made by the petitioners before this Court all the pending proceedings instituted against the petitioners by the defendant is disposed off and permit the petitioners/Defendants to continued the construction in the interest of justice and equity."
undertaking affidavit of the defendant No.1. The defendants have undertaken to remove the construction put by them on the western side of suit schedule property to an extent of 1 ½ feet from the compound wall of the plaintiff's property.
NC: 2024:KHC:45859 WP No. 1468 of 2024
defendants to remove the construction put up illegally by them. After the encroachment is removed by the defendants, the Trial Court may grant permission to the defendants to put up
construction in their property.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order restraining defendants from construction and the appellate court's confirmation should be interfered with under Article 227.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Shobha B
Sri K R Mohan Kumar
Smt Devamma
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
