- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: GOWRAMMA, W/O V. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, DEVAIAHNA, HUNDI EXTENSION , SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION, II STAGE, MYSORE-570005. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [K.V.W.S.D.S.] KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.2, SUB DIVISION, 10TH MAIN ROAD, SWIMMING POOL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570008. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT SUMANGALA GACHINAMATH, ADVOCATE - (ABSENT)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 05.04.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.11.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.186/2004 ON THE FILE OF II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 14.02.2020 to answer the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court on the ground that a notice under Section 57 of the BWSSB Act was not issued unmindful of the notice that was issued to the defendant under the wrong provision of law namely Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court had confirmed the Judgment and Decree in so far as finding regarding possession of the plaintiff, was the First Appellate Court justified in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court to restrain the defendant from discharging drainage water? (iii) Whether the First Appellate Court was right in interfering with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court which was an action to arrest nuisance by the defendant?” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 2. The plaintiff is before this Court assailing the divergent finding in a suit for bare injunction. The plaintiff’s suit seeking injunction against the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board is decreed accepting the plaintiff’s contention that there is interference by the defendant-Board which claimed that it has acquired the land of the plaintiff and surrounding lands for the purpose of carrying out the object under the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (for short ‘Act of 1973’). 3. Defendant filed an appeal before First Appellate Court and raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 57 of the Act of 1973. The defendant also took a stand that the suit property is the property acquired by the defendant – Board for forming the sewage water treatment plant. 4. First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has established her possession over the property and also found that the finding of the Trial Court regarding the plaintiff’s - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 possession is correct. First Appellate Court also held that the defendant’s contention that it has acquired the land in question is not established. However, the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed on the premise that requirement of Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is not complied. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the notice as required under Section 57 of the Act of 1973 was indeed issued before the suit was filed. The notice was duly served on the defendant and defendant replied denying the allegations in the notice. Thus, it is urged that there was no need to wait for two months after service of notice to the defendant to file the suit. 6. Learned counsel would submit that the object behind issuing notice and notice contemplated under Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is very much served and Court could not have allowed the appeal on the technical plea that the suit is filed within two months from the date of service of notice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. The Trial Court has granted a decree for injunction holding that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property while answering issue No.1. The contention of the defendant that it has acquired the suit property and the surrounding property is not established as there is no oral or documentary evidence led by the defendant. However, First Appellate Court found fault in the plaintiff’s suit on the premise that the suit is filed before the expiry of two months’ notice as contemplated under Section 57 of the Act of 1973. 9. The object behind issuing notice as required under Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is very much apparent. Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is something similar to Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is well-settled principle of law that object behind Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to ensure that the dispute between the parties and the Government if could be settled before the suit is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 filed. Similar is the object behind Section 57 of the Act of 1973. 10. In terms of Ex.P9 it is apparent that the plaintiff has issued notice as required under Section 57 of the Act of 1973. To the said notice, defendant has replied and the said reply is marked at Ex.P11. In the reply, defendant has claimed that the property belongs to the defendant on the premise that it has acquired the property. 11. This being the position, the finding of First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was required to wait for expiry of two months as contemplated in Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is not justified, keeping in mind the object behind Section 57 of the Act of 1973. 12. It is also relevant to notice that the defendant has appeared and contested the suit after expiry of two months. Assuming that two months wait under Section 57 of the Act of 1973 is mandatory despite the defendant disputing the contents of the notice, still the plaintiff can file one more suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36188 RSA No. 434 of 2013 alleging the same cause of action as the suit is one for injunction or may file a suit on a different cause of action. 13. This being the position, this Court is of the view that First Appellate Court is not justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court have to be set-aside and accordingly are set-aside. 15. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 05.04.2012 in RA.No.44/2012 on the file of Fast Track Court IV, Mysuru is set-aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2011 in O.S.No.186/2004 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore is restored. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3...