- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5956 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5963 OF 2025 IN MFA No.5956/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. R. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SON OF LATE ITTAMADU RAMAIAH NO.1, RAMA NILAYA AREHALLI VILLAGE ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WIFE OF MURALI GOWDA NO.2, MANJUNATHA NAGAR ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP WARD NO.160 R.R.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM K.R. CIRCLE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM SUB-DIVISION S-15 I FLOOR, VIDYANAGAR BMTC BUILDING, KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU – 560 085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.26972/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-75), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. IN MFA NO.5963/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SON OF LATE ITTAMADU RAMAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 NO.1, RAMA NILAYA AREHALLI VILLAGE, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 061 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SEETHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE AMASEGOWDA WIFE OF V B RAMAKRISHNA 2. SRI V B RAMA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE BASAVEGOWDA RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.3182, VISHWABHARATHI HBCS LTD. HOSAKEREHALLI AND GEREHALLI VILLAGE GIRINAGAR 4TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 085 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU – 560 002. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP WARD NO.160 R.R.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM K.R.CIRCLE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM SUB-DIVISION S-15 I FLOOR, VIDYANAGAR BMTC BUILDING KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU – 560 085 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND C/R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO.26971/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, C/C IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-21), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 2. These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff namely, Sri. R. Muniraju in both suits in O.S.Nos.26971 and 26972 of 2022 questioning the order dated 16.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.26972/2022 on the file of 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru1 (CCH-75), thereby, the applications filed for seeking an order of temporary injunction are dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. It is case made out by both the parties that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule 'A' property and the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule 'B' property. According to the plaintiff, suit schedule 'C' property is the encroached property in the suit schedule 'A' property by 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 the defendant. The Trial Court has rejected the applications filed for temporary injunction by the plaintiff on the reason that the BBMP authorities have inspected the spot and issued khatha in the name of the defendant and obtained a building plan and approval from the concerned authority by paying necessary fees and constructed residential building and obtained electricity connection and are in peaceful possession and enjoying the suit schedule ‘B’ property. 5. It is the observation made by the Trial Court that if at all the plaintiff has grievance, then such grievance is to be made before the BBMP, Bengaluru; the BBMP will initiate necessary action against the defendants, if they are really violating the rules and encroachment. With these observations, the Trial Court has dismissed the applications. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule 'A' property and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule 'B' property. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule 'C' property encroached by the defendant over the suit schedule 'A' property. 7. Learned counsel for both the parties have produced same photographs. Now question before the Trial Court is whether the suit schedule 'C' property was encroached by the defendant or not, but both sides have produced the same photographs and it appears that the entire construction of the building is completed. It is the apprehension of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the defendants shall not further encroach upon the property over the suit schedule 'A' property. Under these circumstances, considering the crux involved in the case, when the plaintiff has made an allegation against the defendants that the defendants have encroached the suit schedule 'C' property, therefore, it is appropriate at this stage to direct both the parties to maintain status quo in regard to possession of the property by leaving the matter - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36984 MFA No. 5956 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5963 of 2025 of whether suit schedule 'C' property is part of the suit schedule 'A' property and encroached by the defendant to be decided in the suit before the Trial Court. Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties. 8. Without being influenced by the observations made above, the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, whether there is any encroachment made by the defendants or not, as per the plaintiff and decide the case independently after appreciating the evidence on record to be adduced in the suit. 9. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47