- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44400 RSA No. 936 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.936 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O SRINIVASA ARCHARYA NO.76, BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE NEAR KALPANA THEATRE UDUPI - 576101 REP. BY B. MADHAVA ACHARYA GPA HOLDER AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER HAVING OFFICE AT SATHYA MOORTHI BHAVAN K M MARG, UDUPI – 576101 …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44400 RSA No. 936 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The suit was filed in O.S.No.12/2017 by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction questioning the notice issued by the respondent. The defendant also appeared and filed the written statement stating that defendant had visited the locality and inspected the said property and noticed that after obtaining the occupancy certificate, there is an illegal construction in the hind portion of the said building by violating the rules of municipality and without obtaining any licence, the said construction was made. The Trial Court having considered the material and record, framed the Issues and answered Issue No.1 as affirmative holding that plaintiff proves that he has constructed as per the approved plan and answered Issue - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44400 RSA No. 936 of 2024 Nos.2 and 3 as negative holding that the defendant fails to prove that plaintiff has constructed in violation of the approved plan and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment was challenged before the First Appellate Court. 4. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly considering the provisions of Section 343 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and also considering the document at Ex.P3 and P4 held that notices were only in the nature of provisional order and Ex.P6 is the final notice issued by the respondent invoking Section 187(9)(a) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, which is amenable for appeal. The plaintiff without exhausting the said alternative efficacies remedy has approached the Civil Court seeking injunction and Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act clearly states that no injunction can be granted in case the plaintiff does not exhaust alternative efficacies remedy and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44400 RSA No. 936 of 2024 5. The counsel would submit that liberty may be given to the plaintiff/appellant to approach the appellate authority in terms of alternative remedy available before the Court and the injunction granted by the Court may be in force for a period of 4 weeks in order to approach the appellate authority. Having considered the said submission and also considering the material available on record, it discloses that it is not a case for admit and frame substantive question of law. The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that the appellant is having a remedy before the appellate authority. When such finding is given, this Court cannot find fault with the same. However, as sought by the appellant’s counsel, liberty to approach the appellate authority, liberty is given as soght. 6. The appellate authority shall not be influenced with the reasoning given by the Trial Court while considering the matter afresh and consider the grounds which have to be urged before the appellate Court. The injunction order will be in force for a period of 4 weeks from today to approach the appellate authority. With this observation, the second appeal is disposed of. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44400 RSA No. 936 of 2024 7. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN