Smt. K Manjula Vs Smt. Umadevi B

SMT. K. MANJULA, W/O K.V RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MIG-21, KHB 3 PHASE 7^TH BLOCK, GUDDAHATTI TO JIGALA ROAD SRINIDHI LAYOUT, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT 562107.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. UMADEVI B., W/O PRASANNA KUMAR L. R., Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VINUTHA B S R/AT No.3839, 1^ST FLOOR, Location: 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, High Court of GAYATHRINAGAR, Karnataka BENGALURU -560021. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.5635, E BELL ROAD, APT 1019, SCOTTSDALE, AZ-85254, USA, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. SHILPA SHREE B., W/O RAJESH N., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:23785 WP No. 35791 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT No.18, 6^TH MAIN, SRI KANTESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU 560096.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI GAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, IN M.A.No.52/2025 DIRECTING BOTH THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY TILL NEXT DATE OF HEARING BY RECEIVING THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT AND ORDER DATED 30.10.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, IN M.A.No.52/2025 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NOT TO CONSTRUCT FURTHER TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL (ANNEXURE-A), BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Gajendra, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

This writ petition challenges the orders dated 27.09.2025 and 30.10.2025 passed in M.A. No.52/2025 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal (appellate Court), whereby

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23785 WP No. 35791 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the petitioner has been directed not to put up any further construction until disposal of the appeal.

¶29

Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent–plaintiff has instituted a suit for mandatory injunction before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Anekal (trial Court). In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, ‘CPC’] was filed, and the trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order of injunction, an appeal was preferred.

¶30

3.1 It is submitted that the petitioner, has filed an appeal before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, in M.A. No.52/2025, wherein the operation of the order of injunction was initially stayed and a Commissioner was appointed. It is further submitted that, upon submission of the Commissioner’s report, the appellate Court directed the appellant not to proceed with any further construction.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23785 WP No. 35791 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

3.2 It is contended that the petitioner is carrying out construction strictly within the boundaries of the property and that there is no encroachment whatsoever. It is further submitted that the roof of the first floor has already been constructed, the construction of the second floor has been halted, and the materials procured for further construction are likely to go to waste.

¶34

Per contra , Sri S. Gajendra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the petitioner has shifted the boundary, resulting in a reduction in the site measurement of the respondent. It is contended that, if permission is granted to proceed with further construction, it would lead to an irreversible situation. Learned counsel further submits that, the appellate Court be directed to expeditious adjudication of appeal. The appeal would be argued without seeking any adjournment.

¶35

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident from the record that an order of injunction was granted by the trial Court. In the suit filed by the respondent herein, the appellate Court had

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23785 WP No. 35791 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

initially stayed the order of injunction and appointed a Court Commissioner.

¶39

5.1 The report of the Court Commissioner, as could be seen therefrom, is not conclusive. If the measurement is taken from north to south and vice versa, it would indicate either there is an encroachment or there is no encroachment. Thus, the Commissioner’s report does not conclusively resolve the controversy in the present case.

¶40

5.2 If further construction is permitted, it may lead to an irreversible situation and may prejudice not only the claims of the respondent but also those in respect of the adjacent properties. At the same time, it is noticed that the property in question is under construction and such construction cannot be stalled indefinitely. Though the appellate Court had posted the matter for arguments on 18.12.2025, it is submitted that the appeal could not be heard for various reasons.

¶41

5.3 In these circumstances, this Court finds no impediment in directing the appellate Court to hear and dispose of M.A. No.52/2025 expeditiously.

¶42