- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1197/A, NEW NO.D-17/A, DEEWANS ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 571 302. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SYYAJI ROAD, MYSURU - 571 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSURU - 571 302. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ZONAL-6, SHESHADRI IYER ROAD, MYSURU - 571 302. 3. HEALTH OFFICER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SAYYAJIRAO ROAD, MYSURU - 571 302. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAIRMAN, NANJARAJAJ BAHADDUR CHOULTRY, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 MYSURU - 571 302. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.31/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2120/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel Sri.B.Sharath Kumar. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant who sued the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the immovable property, detailed hereunder and hereinafter referred to as schedule property which is subject matter of O.S.No.2120/2010 came to be dismissed. "SCHEDULE Situated inside the premises of the Nanjaraja Bahadur Choultry compound which is in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 junction of Seshadri Iyer Road and Vinoba Road belonging to the Nanjaraja Bahadur Choultry mearsuring 541 sq. feet and North to South 8 feet and bounded on East by: Sheshadri Iyer Road. West by: Property belonging to the Nanjaraja Bahadur Choultry North by: Property belonging to the Nanjaraja Bahadur Choultry South by: Property belonging to N.R.B.C" 3. Being observed by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in RA.No.31/2020, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, re-appreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial question of law: "1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below was right in a rejecting the prayer for permanent injunction. It is submitted that has on date of the filing of the suit the Eviction proceeding were pending in PPE 5/2010-11. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 2) Whether the facts of circumstances of the case it is not in dispute that the an order of Temporary Injunction was Granted on 19-11-2010. And the eviction proceedings were pending as per Exhibit P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent on 20-11-2010. Hence as on the date of filing of the suit and subsequently the plaintiff/ appellant continue to be in possession. 3) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of this case the court below ought to have granted an order of injunction till the proceedings in PPE 5/2010-11 l.e. the eviction proceedings culminated passing an order for eviction and an possession is taken in due course of law. 4) Whether the fact and circumstances of the case the court below totally ignored and gave a go by to the order of this Hon'ble court passed in WP No.5170-50-71 of 2011. Wherein the finding in recorded that the plaintiff/ appellant is a tenant in occupation of the premises which is pending consideration In PPE No.5/2010-11. Unless an order is passed an accordance with law the possession of the appellant is protected. 5) Whether the courts below on the facts and circumstances of the case, without considering the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 documents and the evidence showing possession of the appellant has dismissed the suit for injunction ?” 5. Sri.B. Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that after the dismissal of the suit for injunction the Competent Authority has issued notice under the Public Promises Eviction Act (for short 'the Act') and dismissal of the suit would come in the way of urging the defence by the appellant who is the defendant in the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority under the Act and therefore, appeal need to be admitted. 6. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the Appellant Court, perused the material on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal, admittedly, the plaintiff claims that he is a tenant under Nanjaraja Bahaddur Choudry. However, the Government contended that suit schedule property is a Government property. Therefore, plaintiff is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33036 RSA No. 627 of 2022 in unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property. Already a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is initiated by the Competent Authority which is now pending for adjudication. 8. The present appellant being the defendant in the said proceedings, is entitled to urge all necessary defence de horse the dismissal of the suit, which is subject matter of the present appeal. 9. With that observation, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47