Allowed¶58

Sri. Vishwanath v. Sri. Narayanachar G.L

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025MFA/5011/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court 2025; MFA No.5011/2014; Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 CPC; disobedience/violation of interim status-quo order dated 17.07.2006 in O.S.No.6290/2006; Miscellaneous No.569/2011; civil imprisonment for 30 days; cross-examination admission of PW1; photographic evidence of no post-order construction on first floor; mandatory and permanent injunction suit; trial court order set aside; appeal allowed; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 28.06.2014 passed by IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5) in Miscellaneous No.569/2011 set aside; no order as to costs. ¶58

Sri. Vishwanath Vs Sri. Narayanachar G.L — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order dated 28.06.2014 passed by IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5) in Miscellaneous No.569/2011 set aside; no order as to costs.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, respondent No.1 proves that after granting the interim order of status quo on 17.07.2006 the appellant started construction of the first floor and completed the construction, and is thus guilty of disobedience of the order of status quo. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

Point No.1 is answered in the negative: it is proved that there was no violation of the order of status-quo granted by the trial court; the appellant did not disobey it.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

PW1 (respondent No.1) categorically admitted in cross-examination that soon after passing of the status-quo order the appellant did not proceed further with construction; this admission was not correctly appreciated by the trial court.

¶50

Key takeaways

Photographs of the first-floor premises produced by the appellant in compliance with this Court's direction (memo dated 24.01.2024) prove that there was no construction on the first floor, corroborating PW1's admission; the pillars were erected before the status-quo order.ratio¶53
Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative: the trial court's failure to properly appreciate the evidence resulted in an erroneous order requiring interference; accordingly the trial court's order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No.5011/2014 (CPC), High Court of Karnataka (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.), decided 06.03.2025 — Appeal against the order dated 28.06.2014 of the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous No.569/2011 (under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 CPC), whereby the appellant was held guilty of violating the status-quo order dated 17.07.2006 in O.S.No.6290/2006 (a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction concerning a 2'x26' strip on the southern boundary of schedule 'A' property) and sentenced to 30 days' civil imprisonment. The appellate court found that PW1 (respondent No.1) admitted in cross-examination that after the status-quo order the appellant made no further construction on the first floor, and that photographs produced on the Court's direction showed only pillars erected before the order. Point No.1 (disobedience) was answered in the negative and Point No.2 (interference) in the affirmative; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5011 OF 2014 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAN PILLAI R/AT NO.466/56/15/1/F, GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA, MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. NARAYANACHAR G.L AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O SRI. G.S. LAINGAPPACHAR R/AT NO. 79, "BHAVANA" GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶14

SINCE DEAD REPRESNTED BY HIS LR’S 1(A) SMT MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE NARAYANACHAR, G.L.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶16

R/AT NO.79, BAVANA, GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU - 560 068

¶17

1(B) M.S. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE NARAYANACHAR G.L. WORKING AT SHRISTI SPECIAL ACADEMY SY.20, JATTIPALYA, CHANNENAHALLI, 20^TH KM, OFF MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562130

¶18

SRI. NAGESH KUMAR. G.N AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O NARAYANACHAR G.L R/AT NO. 79, "BHAVANA" GAYATHRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H T NATARAJ ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B) & R2)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/O R3 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2014 PASSED ON MISCELLANEOUS NO. 569/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/O 39 R.2A OF CPC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous No.569/2011 challenging the order dated 28.06.2014 by the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, which is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 CPC, thereby, it was held that appellant had violated the order of status-quo. Thus, the appellant/respondent No.1 is held guilty of disobedience of the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.6290/2006 and awarded civil imprisonment for a term of 30 days.

¶27

The respondents herein have filed suit in O.S.No.6290/2006 for mandatory injunction against appellant herein to remove unauthorized construction put up on the southern side boundary line of suit schedule ‘A’ property to the extent of 2’x26’ feet and also for permanent injunction.

¶28

During the pendency of suit, trial court has granted the interim order on 17.07.2006 to maintain status-quo by both the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of property measuring 2’x26’ feet. It is the allegation made by the

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶30

respondents herein that appellant has started to put up construction over the first floor of the building in violation of order of status-quo granted on 17.07.2006 and completed the construction on the first floor. Therefore, the respondents herein have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 of CPC praying to hold that the appellant is guilty of violation of the order of status-quo granted by the Court and accordingly, said application is registered as Miscellaneous No.569/2011. The trial court has received the evidence. The respondent No.1 herein is examined as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondents therein are examined as RW1 and RW2.

¶31

The trial court after appreciating the evidence on this miscellaneous petition has held that appellant is guilty of violation of the order of status-quo and as such, awarded civil imprisonment for a term of 30 days at the cost of respondents herein.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by

¶33

the time order of status-quo was granted, the appellant had

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶35

constructed the ground floor and also put up mould on the ground floor and when the appellant started construction on the first floor, at that time, the order of status-quo was granted. Soon after granting the order of status-quo, the appellant stopped construction on the first floor and till today there is no construction by the appellant for putting further construction on the first floor. Therefore, the appellant has not violated any order of status-quo and also produced photographs dated 23.01.2024 in this regard and submitted that appellant has not made any further construction and thus, he has obeyed the order of status-quo in the suit.

¶36

It is further submitted that in the course of crossexamination the respondents therein admitted that after obtaining the order of status-quo the appellant has not put up further construction. Further submitted that in the petition itself the respondents have contended that by the time of filing the suit, the construction of ground floor was already completed and by the time order of status-quo was granted, there was construction on the first floor. Therefore, submitted

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶38

soon after passing the order of status-quo the appellant has stopped further construction on the first floor and till today it is under the stage of construction as on the stage of passing order of status-quo. Hence, the appellant has not violated order of status-quo, but due to improper appreciation of evidence on record it has resulted in erroneous order being passed.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶40

respondents justified the order passed by the trial court. He submitted that even after communication of the order of status-quo, the appellant has started construction and hence, he is guilty of disobedience of the order of status-quo, which is correctly appreciated by the trial court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

Upon hearing both the sides, following points would

¶42

arise for consideration:

¶43

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, respondent No.1 herein proves the fact that after granting the interim

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶45

order of status quo on 17.07.2006 the appellant started construction of first floor and completed the construction, thus, he is guilty of disobedience of order of status quo?

¶46

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the trial court requires interference by this Court?

¶47

Admittedly, the order of status-quo was granted on

¶48

17.07.2006. Upon perusing the averments made in the Misc. No.569/2011 invoking provision under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w 151 of CPC, in the attempt of saying that the appellant has violated the order of status-quo, in the petition itself the respondent No.1 herein has stated that it is alleged that appellant got completed the construction of the ground floor over the suit schedule ‘B’ property. Therefore, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that by the time passing the order of status-quo the appellant has got completed the construction of structure on the ground floor. It is not the grievance of the respondent No.1 that after granting interim order of status-quo the appellant has constructed the ground

¶49

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶50

floor. In this regard, when the evidence on record is appreciated the respondent No.1 being PW1, in the crossexamination admitted that he has only grievance of putting up construction over the first floor. Since there was an order of status-quo to both the parties to maintain position as on the date of the order, thereafter the appellant has not put up construction. This is an admission given by the respondent No.1/PW1 in the cross-examination in Page No.2, but this is not correctly appreciated by the trial court. When PW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that soon after passing an order of status-quo, the appellant has not proceeded further for construction. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the order of status-quo by the appellant/respondent No.1.

¶51

Further, this Court on 22.01.2024 has directed the appellant/respondent No.1 to produce the recent photographs of the first floor premises. Accordingly, the appellant has produced the photographs along with memo on 24.01.2024 that there was no construction on the floor except pillars,

¶52

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶53

which was put before passing the order of status quo. Upon perusal of the said photographs produced in compliance of order of this Court shows but the fact that there was no construction made on the first floor of ‘B’ schedule property. It is submitted that the concrete pillars on the first floor were erected before passing of order but of status-quo, but soon after passing the order of status-quo was passed further construction was stopped. These photographs prove the fact that there was no construction on the first floor. Therefore, considering these two factors in the cross-examination PW1 himself admitted that after passing the order of status-quo there was no construction on the first floor and also it is corroborated by the photographs produced by the appellant. Hence, it is proved that there is no violation of order of statusquo granted by the trial court. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in this regard properly resulted in erroneous order being passed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative and Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. Hence, the order passed by the trial court requires

¶54

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9686 MFA No. 5011 of 2014

¶55

interference by this Court. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court is set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶56

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 28.06.2014 passed by IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5) in Miscellaneous No.569/2011, is set aside.

¶59

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶60

SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri. Vishwanath v. Sri. Narayanachar G.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vishwanath v. Sri. Narayanachar G.L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nandaramu Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri Gopi @ Gopi Krishna Vs Sri Krishnappa @ Krishna

Manasa P Shetty Vs Smt Mohini K Shetty

Smt. R. Sujatha Vs Smt. Shivamma

M/S. Candid Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri. a. C. Srinivas

Sri Revanna Vs Dr Chandrakala