MFA 7406/2005
1N THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2003
BEFGRE . 4
THE HC)N'BLE MR.JUS'i'ICE B.S.PA'I'IL
M.i?'.A..N0.'T4-06 CFC
BETWEEN:
L.I\iA§i'AYANA RAG,
S [O LATE LAKSHMAN RAG,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
11 SMT. HLAKSHMI BAI, .
W/G LATE LNARAYANA RA{3~,._
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 4' M
2) P+i.SHANKAR RAO. .
s/o LATE L.NAgAYA_N_A RED. 1. _
3} NAGARAJA RAO, '
s/o LATE 'L,NARA1'.5N2x;'RA0.,:" ~ 4.
AGED ABOUT24 mags... = .
=13 BHARf3;FHIA..N.,
4' * an/0. ;.m'1__=_',.% L.NARAYANA------F:AO,
2 V Ac;-zap' A13'ojm.fj23_ YEARS.
5) raI,dHA§$Lr.iéixA.V - . V
1:)/*0 LATE L.--!'§.5;R,AYANA RAO,
AGEQ ABOUT go YEARS.
- ALL,ARE RESIADING AT NOB-44,
4 _ " '?RQFF.P.'__I'Y No.57, om No.29,
9.v,R.goAD, BANGALORE - 550 053. ..APPELLAN'I"S
' _ _(Bi* SR1 AMARESH AANGADI, ADV. 3
MFA 7406 I 2005
AND:
1. V.THI§?UVANAKKARASU.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERAPPA CHETTIAR,
R/AT NQ184, 6'13 CROSS,
4'13 MAIN ROAD,
C!-IAMARAJAPET,
BANGALORE -- 560 018.
2. THE COMIVHSSIONER, ._
BANGALORE MAHANA('J\RA ?ALIKE, .
BANGALORE. " - ..
3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE EI~I_G:NE-ER, -
CHICKPET DIVISION, '
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA F'A.L1K._E, I
BANGALORE.
4. ASSISTANT R§~3VENUVE.'_O'FF'ICER,
BANGALORE'. CI'_E'Y CO°§2PO'RA-'I'i0Nv,_.
CHICKPET §)I'IHSE{3.1g, «
BANGALoRE.I_V"j;' "£2: ..RESPONDEN'f'S
(BY SE'! Is);*-IIEJR' RF};
SR1 S.M.C}§ANDRA.SH-E}€AF:.,__AE\'V. FOR R-2)
'It:«1§Is'VAIPPEAL ":s.._.I=fII..ED we 43 R my CPC AGAINST THE ORDER
:'V:vII).AfifPED V*29.6.:Io05'I*I9AssE£) db: i.A.N().6 IN os 130.8760/1997 ON THE FILE
dI?'€?IIE--Vxx\_{II~I.Ia«§3"E>L._ CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSENG
I.A;'Nc_2.'6-'_¢IifIL"::Ij--A.3Y,';'I%I§2: APPELLANTS HEREIN U/O 39 R 1 & 2 CFC
' V ssaxmg AN I«* TEMPORARY Imuncnon.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT
_ ' - .'5uELIV'ERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA 740612005
3
JUDGMEHT
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs aggrieved b€v;_'"tii:¥e,V'_~ _
dated 29.06.2005 passed 011 1A no.6 in o.s.No.a7+5.0,j'199ii;: ._
2. {A 110.6 was filed by the plainfifiééfapgttéfliazits
Order XXXIX Rules 1 &. 2 CFC
injurnction restraining the deferadattti-2:2 3 8:. 3
herein) from sanctioning "plan: the' 'defendant
(W respondent herein) in pnoperty.
The trial Court tiie holding that the
plaintiffs to show that the 1::
defendant:vVVii?&;t$ obtain any sanctioned
plan and being the authorities were
intending s2tai33ctionV in favour of the 1″ defendant.
x’l”i1e; ‘H3150–«obsezved that no injunction couid be
the public oificers from discharging their
amass:
_, AA Counsel for the appellant contends that the 1″
4″d:tift:j1d9:nit- 1″ respondent herein has no right to put up any
mnstrucfion on me schedule property and themfone he is not
téntified in Law to obtain the sanctioned plan and as the plainfiifs
5/
MFA 7406/2005
4
apprehended that the defendant was likely to obtain the
sanctioned plan and put up illegal construction, prayer for
temporary injunction was made in the suit.
4. It is to be stated here that whether the 19* _
entitled for issue of a sanctioned plan authorizi;1g~w.t1iu1fa%’.tO”Afiii1t ug ”
construction on the suit schedule
arises for consideration as and when apgiliseefion Ztliie L»
defendant before the competent seincfioned
plan. If the plaintifls nob;e¢fi¢nse issuence of any
sancfioned plan, it is open for bench objections
before the j m’HI’hey cannot obtain. any
interim ordei’ ” it fmna considering the
applicatigznxv for seinetioned plan if the same is
observed by the trial Court, if
stieh is granted as prayed for in IA no.6,
to restraining the defendants 2 55 3 who are
~ j;-vi;?1_e’ ofliciéihiiii’ of the Bangalore Mahanagaxa Palike from
their statutory duties.
MFA 7406/2005
5
5. In the circumstances there being no merit in this appeal,
the same de
subject to the observations made herein above.
KK
servcs to be dismisseci and is accordingly dismissc§;1 ‘: