JUDGMENT
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. What started as an earnest and serious attempt on the part of an offended person, who felt his property rights were invaded and instituted a suit for injunction as also a mandatory injunction for removing the offending part of the building in the neighbourhood and though had resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with the defendant being quite naturally aggrieved by the decree and approaching this Court for relief in an appeal and a serious debate as to the correctness or otherwise of the conduct of the plaintiffs and the defendant in the light of material placed by them before the Trial Court and also about the judgment of the Trial Court has ultimately turned out to be a quite withdrawal of the complaints or grievances of the parties particularly with the possibility of a proper scrutiny by the law enforcing second respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore and has ultimately resulted in a joint memo being filed by the petitioner and the respondents in the appeal, which is virtually like a hotly contested test match petering out to a tame draw.
2. The subject-matter was violation of one party of not only the property rights of the other party, but also violating relevant laws, rules and regulations under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and in the process when this Court noticed such possibilities on either side during the course of the hearing of this appeal and therefore had directed the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to take necessary corrective action in accordance with law against the violators have sunk their differences patched up between themselves to fight the common-toe the Corporation and want to get out the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
3. The result was that both the parties were found to be wanting in compliance with the procedural requirement in the matter of constructing their respective buildings and the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, on the mandate issued by this Court at last woke up to the reality and initiated action for setting right the violations. It appears the action on the part of the respondent 2-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has resulted in passing orders against both the parties under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the rules and regulations thereunder calling upon the parties to demolish the offending portions of their buildings and the present position as submitted by Sri Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent 1 is that as against such adverse orders suffered by the parties at the hands of the Public Authority now the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and earlier the Bangalore City Corporation, statutory appeals have been filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 443-A of the Act and in such appeals, the Appellate Tribunal has passed orders staying the operation of the adverse orders passed by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
4. These facts are revealed not only in the joint memo dated 1-3-2007 filed by learned Counsel for the parties and signed by both the petitioner and respondent 1, defendant and plaintiff respectively in the suit, but also forms part of the affidavit sworn to by one M.A. Khalid, the Joint Commissioner (West), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike dated 18-6-2007 to which affidavit is appended the copies of the stay orders issued by the Tribunal in the pending appeals before it.
5. Sri Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent 1 have requested the Court to pass orders on the joint memo which, inter alia, indicates the above development and where under the plaintiff in the suit seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the suit itself, the effect of which can be that the decree passed by the Trial Court falls to ground; that the parties are relieved of the judgment and decree of the Court below against which the present appeal had been preferred and are left to work out their rights and remedies, if any, in any other manner provided and also to enable the respondent 2-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike now and earlier Bangalore City Corporation to proceed in accordance with law or to defend action taken by them as is now necessary before the Appellate Tribunal.
6. Though this Court not only examined the merits and demerits of the versions of the petitioner and respondents which in the process had revealed the letharginess and inaction on the part of the public authority in taking timely commensurate action against violators, particularly in the matter of putting up structures within the limits of the Corporation and who were violating the statutory provisions with impunity and in the light of such development, the need for issuing directions to the respondent 2-Corporation to get active and to pursue action in accordance with law against all such violators, learned Counsel not only for the private parties but also the public authority submit that a law is being ushered in to take care of such violators; that it is likely all violations will be permitted by statutory operation to be regularised on payment of certain fine etc.
7. In the light of this development, I do not find it is necessary at this point of time to issue a direction which can have larger implication, a direction to the public authority like the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which can have a wider repercussion particularly as the matter has come up before this Court only in the context of a lis between the private parties and not mainly in the context of a violation in the public realm.
8. The request made by the respondent 1 in this, appeal and the plaintiff in the suit for withdrawing the suit which is readily agreed by the defendant in the suit who is the appellant before this Court and not seriously opposed by the respondent 2-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike through their respective Counsel, can definitely put an end to the disputes between the private parties. It is for this reason, the request made in the joint memo is accepted. The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit the consequence of which is to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and it is so ordered in this appeal.
9. So far as respondent 2-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike/Bangalore City Corporation-the public authority is concerned, as rightly submitted by Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for this respondent, the action initiated by the Corporation/Palike against the parties being pursuant to the statutory provision and an independent action, it can be pursued and it does not get affected by the order passed in this appeal i.e., withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff in the suit.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed without any order as to costs.