- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 13589 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SAMMY'S DREAM LAND CO. PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9, 2ND FLOOR, BEL-AIR DRIVE MEKHRI CIRCLE, BELLARY ROAD, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. N. RAMESH AGE: 68 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTONY, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SMITHA R.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED MARCH 19, 2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN M.A.NO.30/2017 WHICH IS Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 05, 2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ON IA NO.1 IN OS 632/2017 AND ETC., THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is said to be the owner of large extent of lands in Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The respondent is said to have purchased some lands from the petitioner. Apart from the sale deeds executed in favour of respondent, it is submitted that there exists an agreement between the parties, which recognizes easementary right of the respondent and its customers and subsequent purchasers to access the lands sold, through the property of the petitioner. 2. Respondent is in the business of development of immovable properties. The respondent put up an arch on the property belonging to the petitioner, over which, the respondent has an easementary right. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 3. Thereafter, the petitioner installed a sign board on the arch put up by the respondent mentioning the name of petitioner company, and several other persons, who purchased lands from the petitioner and had access to their respective property through the same path, where the respondent had put up the arch, also put up their sign board on the same arch constructed by the respondent. This was done by obtaining permission from the petitioner. These acts were objected to by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred OS.No.632/2017 with the following prayer: "Wherefore, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its staff, agents, servants or anybody on its behalf, from preventing the plaintiff from putting its up signages of its choice and doing any other work in the suit schedule property, without causing obstruction to defendant's free passage in the road passing through the suit schedule property and also to it’s the signage put on the arch situated in the suit schedule property and to grant costs of the suit and such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 4. The Trial Court, on an application filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC has passed the following order in the said original suit. "I.A. filed by the plaintiff U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed. Consequently the defendants, its staffs, agents, servants or any person claiming from him, are restrained by and order of temporary injunction, preventing the plaintiff from putting its signages on the arch and doing any other work in the suit property, without causing the obstruction to the defendant's free passage in the road passing through the suit property and also to its signage put on the arch in the suit property pending disposal of the suit." 5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred MA No.30/2017 and the First Appellate Court has passed the following order. "Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. is partly allowed. The order passed in I.A.No.1 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Devanahalli in O.S.No.632/2017 is modified. Both the parties to the suit shall maintain status- quo as the situation exists as on today, pending disposal of the suit. Office is directed to sent the copy of this order to the Trial Court immediately." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. This Court, on 05.04.2018, after hearing the parties concerned, has passed the following interim order. "Heard Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Sr.Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed in Misc.Appeal No.30/2017 dated 19.03.2018 whereby, the lower appellant Court was pleased to modify the order passed by the Court of Original jurisdiction in OS 632/2017 and was further pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo, thereby virtually injuncting the plaintiff itself. During the course of argument, Sri. K.G.Raghavan, learned Sr.Counsel for the respondent-Caveator would submit, to simplify the matter for the present and as an interim arrangement, he would have no objection to the petitioner putting up any signage subject to the condition that they shall not put up the same on the existing arch as it is claimed that it is put by them. Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Sr.Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that petitioner would put up the signage independently without placing it on the existing arch. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties is placed on record. Ordered accordingly. The present order is passed an ad hoc arrangement for the present. List this petition for consideration after vacation." 8. The respondent has filed a memo dated 03.04.2025 along with photographs showing present status of the arch constructed by the respondent and the signages put up by the petitioner and other persons, who have purchased property from the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, both the counsel for the petitioner and respondent submit that parties have arrived at compromise, wherein, they have agreed to maintain status-quo in respect of arch concerned and go by the interim order passed by this Court on 05.04.2018 and they together prayed that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 05.04.2018. They further undertake, they will make a similar submission in OS.No.632/2017 and get the necessary decree passed from the Trial Court. Hence, the following order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14032 WP No. 13589 of 2018 ORDER The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 05.04.2018 referred to above. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10