M R Srinivas Vs Squadron Developers Private Limited

SQUADRON DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT, NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2025 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN OS NO. 888/2025. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 888/2025 BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE (ANN-A), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS IN IA NO. 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 888/2025 BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE (ANNX-W AND W1).

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

The notice is yet to be served to the

¶28

respondent/defendant before the trial Court.

¶29

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiff Nos.1

¶30

and 2 in OS.No.888/25 who are before this Court aggrieved by the non-passing of the orders on the application IA.No.2 filed under Order No. XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of an injunction, whereas the trial Court passed an order by

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

issuing suit summons on the application and on the main suit.

¶35

A suit came to be filed by the

¶36

petitioners/plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, agents, workmen, officers, henchmen, representatives and assigns from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the 'A' schedule property belonging to the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶37

Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed two applications. One application IA.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering, obstructing. blocking, or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress to the Schedule 'A'

¶38

property through the pathway of 9 metres running over lands owned and possessed by defendants in the Schedule 'B' properties across Survey Nos. 46/1, 45/1, 45/2,44 and

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

43 as demarcated in the documents produced before the

¶43

trial Court and also before this Court by way of photographs and a Google satellite image.

¶44

In the said application, plaintiffs also sought for

¶45

an alternative relief which reads as under.

¶46

"Pass order of temporary injunction restraining Defendant its agents, workmen, officers, henchmen, representatives, assigns, and such other person claiming through or under them from Obstructing, blocking, or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the Plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress to the schedule A property through the pathway alongside the eastern perimeter of the Lake, i.e., along the western perimeter of the Lands in Sy. Nos. 45/2, 44 and 43 i.e., the schedule B1 to 83 properties owned and possessed by the Defendants; in the interest of justice and equity.

¶47

And grant such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶48

Pending issuance of notice, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense issuance of notice and issue an order of adinterim, ex-parte order of Stay as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

It is the contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs

¶52

that they are the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey No. 46/2 measuring 32 guntas situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. They admit to the fact that the defendant/respondent is the owner of Survey No. 44, 46/1, 45/1, 45/2 and 43.

¶53

It is further contended that the plaintiffs have been using the road which is a pathway to reach his property at schedule 'A' through the property of the defendants as mentioned in the application to an extent of 9 meters width running through the property of the defendant which is the subject matter of the suit and also the application where he seeks an interim order to permit him to use the 9 meters width pathway running over the Schedule 'B' properties in Survey No. 46/1, 45/1, 45/2, 44 and 43.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that along with the application for an ad-interim

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

order of temporary injunction; in the said application itself,

¶58

he has sought for an alternative prayer to permit the plaintiffs from using the road and restraining the defendant from obstructing, blocking or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiffs' right to ingress and egress of the Schedule 'A' property through the pathway alongside the eastern perimeter of the lake, i.e., along the western perimeter of the lands of Survey No. 45/2, 44 and 43 i.e. Schedule B1 to B3 properties owned and possessed by the defendant.

¶59

Petitioners/plaintiffs have made necessary averments and pleadings to that effect stated herein that petitioners/plaintiffs are the absolute owner and admit the ownership of the defendant over the schedule property and the pathway that has being used by the plaintiffs for over a period of 66 years. Therefore, they have sought for an alternative prayer to use the road that runs along the lake, which is a pathway, which is also being obstructed by

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the defendant, which is the only way to approach and reach the property of the plaintiffs' suit schedule 'A'.

¶64

The trial Court has issued suit summons on the said application and has not passed ad-interim order as sought for by plaintiffs, aggrieved by which they are before this Court.

¶65

Defendant has not been notified yet in the trial Court. Therefore this Court does not find the need to issue notice to the respondent/defendant as this Court is inclined to dispose of the petition by grant of an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction for use of the alternate road for the following reasons, by dispensing notice in view of urgency urged.

¶66

The plaintiffs admit that they are the owner of the property bearing Survey No. 46/2 measuring 32 guntas and also that the defendant being the owner of the other properties mentioned in the Schedule 'B', namely Survey No. 46/1, 45/1, 45/2, 44 and 43. It is the

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

contention of plaintiffs that they have been using the pathway running through the property of the defendant for over 66 years and the other side of the property which runs along with the lake. The alternate road which has been sought in the application for almost 66 years. The suit is filed for right of easementary way to use the property of the defendant which leads to the Schedule 'A' property of the plaintiffs, which, however, will be decided in due course of time after the appearance of the defendant.

¶70

Be that as it may, since the only approach way to the plaintiffs is either through the property of the defendant in Schedule 'B' or through the lakeside along the lakeside to ingress and ingress 'A' schedule property which is runs alongside the eastern perimeter of the lake. While granting an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the trial Court is bound to look into these necessary facts and circumstances and consider the application on the need of urgency and the damage that

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

would be caused if the interim order is not granted so also the interference or obstruction that is sought to be put up by the defendant which leads to the threat or harassment or damage or obstruction that would be caused to the plaintiffs if it is not prevented and the delay in issuance of notice would frustrate the claim of the plaintiffs.

¶75

These aspects have not been considered by the trial Court while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC for grant of an adinterim ex-parte temporary injunction, if not for the main prayer, at least the alternative prayer.

¶76

Prima-facie, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have made out a valid ground for grant of an ad-interim order. The balance of convenience lies in their favour. So also much hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if they were not permitted to use the alternate road that is the pathway alongside the eastern perimeter of the lake which runs along the western perimeter of the lands of the

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

B1 to B3 schedule properties, which are owned and possessed by defendant.

¶80

This Court is of the opinion that no hardship or

¶81

inconvenience would be caused to the defendant if the plaintiffs are permitted to use the alternate road alongside the eastern perimeter of the lake so also if the defendant is restrained from obstructing, blocking, interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress to the Schedule 'A' property through the pathway alongside the eastern perimeter of the lake, as that is the only pathway that is available to them to reach their property, i.e., Schedule 'A' property. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order.

¶82

ORDER

¶83

The petition is disposed of .

¶84

An ad-interim exparte temporary injunction is

¶85

granted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, the respondent/defendant is hereby restrained from

¶86

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:45093 WP No. 25291 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

obstructing, blocking, interfering in any manner

¶89

whatsoever with the plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress of the 'A' schedule property through the pathway along the eastern perimeter of the lake alongside the western perimeter of lands in the B1 to B3 schedule properties which is owned and possessed by the defendant till the next date of hearing. Consequently, plaintiffs are permitted to use the alternative road as mentioned in the application IA.No.2.

¶90

It is made clear that this order is passed solely for the purpose of granting an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction for the use of the alternative road. Defendant is at liberty to contest the matter on appearance before the trial Court.

¶91

The trial Court is at liberty to deal with the application on merits after appearance of the defendant and deal with the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by this Court, as this order is passed solely for the purpose of deciding the

¶92