- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1973 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDINGS N R SQURE, BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND REPRESENTED BY ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR. KRISHNA KUMAR S/O LAXMAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATYANAND B. S., ADV.) AND: MR. VIKRAM KUMAR JAIN S/O MR. BHAWARLAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.964, SHER KHAN LANE DHARAMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGARATHPET, BANGALORE-560002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERENDRA KUMAR N., ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.5221/2023 ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the appellant/defendant/Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short “BBMP”) in O.S.No.5221/2023 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/ defendant for permanent injunction and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/BBMP and learned counsel for the defendant/respondent and perused the material on record. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, who have produced the Trial Court Records, though the matter is posted for admission, it is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this judgment. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would invite my attention to the impugned judgment and decree in order to point out that the same would have effect of preventing the appellant/BBMP from proceeding against the respondent/plaintiff in relation to suit schedule property, in accordance with law and by following due process of law and as such, the impugned judgment and decree may be modified/clarified, by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant/defendant to take necessary steps to proceed against the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that in the event, the appellant/defendant were to take steps against the respondent/plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property by following due process of law and in accordance with law, liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to defend such action/ proceedings, in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Consequently, the defendant, its agents, men or anybody under or through it, are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction, from demolishing any portion of the schedule building or from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Draw decree accordingly.” 7. The suit schedule property is described as under: SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property, building bearing No.86/4 which is the amalgamated property situated at H.M.Samaja Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004 of BBMP in ward No.142, Sunkenahalli, BBMP PID No.49-59-86/4 measuring East to West 59 feet and North to South 29 feet, totally measuring 1711 Sq.Ft. and bounded on the: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 East by : Road West by : Common passage and Property of Sharadamma North by : Common passage and Private property South by : Conservancy Road 8. As can be seen from the impugned judgment and decree, no liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant/ defendant/BBMP to proceed against the respondent/ plaintiff in relation to the aforesaid suit schedule property by following due process of law and in accordance with law. 9. Under these circumstances, in view joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this appeal, by suitably modifying/clarifying the impugned judgment and decree and by issuing certain directions in this regard. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 (i) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2025 in O.S.No.5221/2023 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is hereby modified/clarified that, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant/ defendant/BBMP to take appropriate action/steps against the respondent/plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property by following due process of law and in accordance with law. (ii) In the event, the appellant/defendant takes such steps against the respondent/plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property, the respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled to take up all defences and contest such action/proceeding etc., initiated/instituted by the appellant/defendant before any Court/Forum in accordance with law. (iii) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41468 RFA No. 1973 of 2025 (iv) Subject to the aforesaid directions and reserving liberty in favour of the parties, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6