IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 2000
BEFORE 'O
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREEN1vA.sE'
M.F.A. No. 7663 of 2008 (CPC'4iN;..?:'}_wv E
M.F.A NO. 7662 of 20055 '{c1>c-IN.J);. «. "
BETWEEN: 'O 'T O' A' 0
M/S. Ircon International Ltd,-;" -.
[A Govt. of India Unde1:fakir--'_g) . ~
Ministry of Railways, ' 'M _ O -.
Divisional Railway Man.a.ger7s'Oificé;". ~
Ground Floor', .Sou.the§Tn Ra,i.lw.ay.,f ' '
Bangalore """_.5,30;:fi23.,v V V A O'
APPELLANT
( Common in both Appeals}
[By BEG. VNag'a.raja.'23ldv. appearing for Sri. N. J.
Gu1f§p.prakash ~ for Appellant.)
l.. l'S1n.t'.' 'Nfagarathna,
A »W/o..P1it.1aswa1ny,
Ag¢cl.about 63 yea1'$,
R/.G..___NO.255/A to 255/E,
AA "Old No.14, Chatra,
" -Nlfuniswarnappa Compound,
Kodihalli, Ulsoor Post,
T Bangalore ~---- 560 008.
2. Sri. K. S. Shiva Prakash,
Deputy General Manager,
Ircon International Ltd.,
Ministry of Railways.
Division Railway Manager,
Ground Floor, Southern Railway,
Bangalore ---- 570 023.
3. Sri. Girish Arora,
S/o. Late, N.L. Arora,
Aged about 44 years, 1
Managing Director,
No.8~'~l8, 7th Cross, _
15th Main, 3rd block, Korarriangala, _ ~ 1 l
Bangalore. V' g_ "
_
(common in both appeals.)
(By Sri. M. Shivaprakash, tadvjl '1";o1-_..,}_.§'1.i;g.,Il\l§'<j..:tiC€: to R2 and
R3 are dispensed.) i
l3.0th these'ill'./[F"AS"'a,l'Gfiled U/O 43 Rule (1) [Y] of CPC,
against 'the order ..datedl"'12.06.2008 passed on LA. No.7
and I.A.Nlo._2l respectiv'olyiin O.S. No.493'7/O2 on the file of
the Add], City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore,
Re_i»ei':ting the "application filed U/0.39 Rule 4 CPC to
.l"v.acate theinterim order of status quo passed on
'2«4)'08,/_20(')?. and allowing i.A.No.2 filed u/ 0.39 Rule 1 and
' for -respectively.
B,otl1,n:tl1ese appeals coming on for admission, this
day, thefilourt, delivered the following:
W
J U D G M E N '1'
These two appeals are preferred by the first
defendant in the suit challenging the common the
trial Court dated 12-6-08 passed on
O.S.No.4937/02. MFA No.7682 /A-as ofileld ¢?hiai.1cfi:g:n.g the i ; if
order passed on I.A.No.2 and
challenging the order passed'V-I.A.1\io;--.'.7;
2. Notice issued to:ithenjrespondents No.2 and 3
who are defendants No.’ is dispensed
with as _Vi1.c)t’ preferred any appeal challenging the
impugned. order Court.
»For “th’e””‘sake of convenience, 17£\1rties are
they are referred to in the suit before the
VeCourt..” ‘
it 4″ The first respondent who is the plaintiff has
‘brought the suit O.S.No.4937/O2 against the appellant
two others for the relief of permanent injunction
fie
restraining the defendants from interfering with her
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties_:’b_ea_ring
Sy.No. 170 and 172 of Kodihalli. Along with
plaintiff made l.A.No.2 under Or_der__39 _~Ri1lesijv ardiiagap 2_;5r
CPC seeking an order of temporary 7inj~une’tion’again~st:the
defendants restraining thém”‘~~.fr0m”‘ her’
possession and enjoyment of-t-hlesuitgp
5. Thepwtrial granted
an ex ordered suit summons
and notiee defend-ants. The appellant
who the suit after entering
appearence in l.A.No.7 under Order 39 Rule
4 of§’CPC seeking to Vacate the said ex parte order of
A .sta.tus ‘ V
trial Court by impugned order allowed
V –V by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
if lyiof rejected I.A.No.7 filed by the first defendant
— Order 39 Rule 4: and modified the status quo order
$3/_
granted on 24-8-02 and granted an order of temporary
injunction restraining the defendants I to…pl3:’i.from
interfering, dispossessing and tresspassing or?_:leneVroae}2._ing
upon the suit schedule properthymtill
suit.
7. Against this, the”t’irst defer-tda_nt’_:hasfnpreferred
these two appeals.
8. It isthe case” of that she is the
owner in of the property
bearing”Sy’;Al§¢e, ‘I situated to the west of the suit
sketqh7..a,’fl 1;) property bearing No. 169 / 3
aileged tolibe ownedAAby”d»efendants No. 2 and 3 and to the
V’ ..eaféf}bfi,.Atl16″i–p1″0peTty*”Sy.No. 169/3 it is the property bearing
iztftgelonging to the first defendant. The
the plaintiff is that defendants 2 and 3 claim
be owner of property bearing Sy.No.169/ 2 situated
if east of the suit property bearing Sy.No.170, is
.,,_rJ:iaking an illegal attempt to interfere with the possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property
bearing No. 170 and 172.
9. It is the ease of the first defend§a!1’it”l”t1fiiat
plaintiff is not the absoiute owr_ier,__iI1 posses’sioi’1of suit_
property bearing Sy. Nos. 170 and
The first defendant is the._V:ab’soluteV_ the site’
bearing No. 4121 of Sy.No.pA].§€3″/’v2″(plot ‘No.if;?.) Kodihaili
village, having purchased its original owner
and it is npoit V’ the alleged suit
properties in between the suit
properties of the first defendant there is
property [plot No.3] and there is no
occasion. for defendant to interfere with the alleged
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
1′. — .. V V
Shiva Prakash, the learned Counsel
apipezaring for the plaintiff fairly submits that in between
‘suit property bearing Sy.No. 170 and 172 and the
%
property of the first defendant bearing Sy. N 0. 169 / 2 [plot
No.2) there is property bearing No. 169/ 3 claimed by the
defendants No. 2 and 3 and therefore he an
order of injunction granted by the trial Cotirt pp
and restricted against defendant»—.No~13p”j9t?od.1’d j
sufficient for the plaintiff.
11. Sri. B.G.Nagaraj.saL*~..yp the 1e.arne’dv””””Counsel
appearing for the first defend’ai1tf- the appellant, submits.
if the impugned order trial Court is
modified, as isuggested i31y.:’.theVA’learnedj’¢ounsei appearing
for the his client will be protected and
he has nopobjectioi*i.for”disposing of the appeals with such
rnodification. ~
3 »v4.ZXeCo.rdingly, the appeals are allowed in part.
der passed by the trial Court is modified and
is confined against defendant No.3 who claims to be the
in respect of Sy.No. 169/3 [plot No.3) situated to the
…_east of the suit properties bearing Sy.No.i7’O and 172.
%
The order of temporary injunction granted by the trial
Court is Vacated in so far as first defendant; is_;e.o”n.c_e;’ned
who is the owner of Sy.No.169/ 2 (plot
the east of Sy.i\Io. 169/3 [plot No._3). it
13. The trial Court is giireett-:_(:’1″to disgjoste of t};1éts§i1t.
on merits and in accordari’c»e’A’With ttiaxgiiiinzitiiiout being
influenced by any of the«-obs-§er§.rati*o;i.e”made herein.
Sd/.«