- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16074 MFA No. 2125 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2125 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIGNESH DAYALAN S/O SRI. A. DAYALAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SMT. NANDHINI BANGALORE SHANKAR W/O VIGNESH DAYALAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.40, 2ND “A” MAIN ROAD, OMBR LAYOUT, BEHIND ST. GEORGE COLLEGE, CHIKKABANASWADI, KALAYANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHARATH.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUCHITRA VINOD W/O SRI. VINOD KUMAR.S, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.451, 11TH B CROSS, 25TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. SRI. H.S VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE H. S. SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH R/O NO.451, 11TH B CROSS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16074 MFA No. 2125 of 2025 25TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH T.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.25759/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-29), MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the appeal questioning the order dated 01.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.25759/2024 by XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-29), Mayohall, Bengaluru. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants not to demolish the compound wall existing on the western side of the suit property, by claiming that the compound wall is in existence in the property of the plaintiffs, but the defendants - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16074 MFA No. 2125 of 2025 are falsely claiming that the compound wall is in existence on the property of the defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they have purchased the property in the year 2024 and then came to know that the compound wall is in the property of the defendants. When this being the fact, before purchasing the property by the defendants in the year 2024, the compound wall was in existence. According to defendants, if the plaintiffs have encroached the property of the defendants and put up compound wall, for this, the defendants have complained before the BBMP for taking action as per law. It is submitted that now the BBMP has issued notice to the plaintiffs and said action is still pending. 4. Even before the compound wall is in existence prior to purchase made by the defendants in the year 2024, then whether the compound wall is in the property of the defendants or not, is to be decided before the Competent Court of law or by making measurement and survey to be conducted by the competent authorities, but the defendants are not supposed to demolish on their own. Therefore, when the compound wall is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16074 MFA No. 2125 of 2025 in existence prior to the year 2024, before purchasing the property by the defendants, then on whose property the compound wall is in existence, whether the plaintiffs encroached the property or not is to be decided in the trial. Therefore, in this regard, the trial Court is correct in granting interim order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from demolishing the compound wall. 5. When the action by the BBMP is still pending in this regard, therefore, the defendants shall not demolish the compound wall on their own. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in passing the order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44