- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA IN CRP No. 833/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 833 OF 2024 (SC) C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 832 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 834 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 835 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 836 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 837 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 838 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 839 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 840 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 841 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 842 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 844 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 845 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 846 OF 2024 , CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 847 OF 2024 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS BANGALORE - 560 076, [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY] …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S VIVEKANANDA REDDY, S/O. S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SMT. K. VIDHYA, W/O. VIVEKANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.54/15, VIDHYA NIVAS, NETHRAVATHY EXTENSION, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. 3. SRI. DEBABRATHA, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.GF-106, FIRST FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS SC NO.164/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 832/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076, [DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ULLAL RANJAN NAYAK, S/O. ULLAL RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. SMT. ULLAL RADHIKA NAYAK, W/O. ULLAL RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.GF-012, GROUND FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.167/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 834/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S.N. SIVA KUMAR, S/O. S. NAMASIVAYAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.TF-302, 3RD FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.157/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 835/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY DANUSH S.P.] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS SWATI ATHANIKAR, D/O . KRISHNA MURHTY ATHANIKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SMT. SNEHA ATHANIKAR, W/O. KRISHNA MURHTY ATHANIKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.FF-111, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 1ST FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.163/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 836/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076. [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. ARINDAMROY, SRI. S.P. RAMESH] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S. BHARADWAJ S/O. LATE. V.SRIDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 2. SMT. RADHIKA RAGHUNATHAN, W/O. SRI. S. BHARADHWAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.FF-102, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, PASSED IN SC.NO.166/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 837/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS AND: 1. SRI BALASUBRAMANIAN NAGARAJAN, S/O. A. NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, OLD NO.0/A, LAKSHMIPURAM, SOUTH STREET, VADASERY, NAGERCOIL - 629 001, KANYAKUMARI DIST. 2. SRI. ASHOKAN, RESIDING AT:FLAT NO.FF-112, FIRST FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH J., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.162/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 838/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. RAMESH S.P.] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BIDDANDA DEVAIAH CARIAPPA S/O. B.G. DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. SMT. C.P.ACCAVVA, D/O, SRI. BIDDANDA DEVAIAH CARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT: NO.49, SAVIKA MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD, T.K.LAYOUT, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. 3. SIR. MAHESH KUMAR RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.SF-203, 2ND FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.160/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 839/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VIDYA CAHANDRASEKARAN, W/O. KARTHIKEYAN SOMASUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. SRI. KARTHIKEYAN SOMASUNDARAM, S/O. SRI. R. SOMASUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.TF-312, 3RD FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.155/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 840/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY RAMESH S.P.] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AMRUTHA J., W/O. JAYAKUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SRI. JAYAKUMAR J., S/O. R. JAYARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.SF-206, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.159/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 841/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO.111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SURAJ ASHOK DODDANNAVAR, S/O. ASHOK DODDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.FF-202, 2ND FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 076. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.161/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 842/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KEDAT VASANTRAO KULKARNI, S/O. VASANTHRAO KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SMT. MALTI KULKARNI, W/O. SRI. VASANTHRAO KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.SF-211, 2ND FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.158/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 844/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS AND: 1. SRI SYED ABDUL KATHAR, S/O. M.E.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SMT. BEEMA BEGUM S., W/O. SYED ABDUL KATHAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT: NO.3A, JINNA NAGAR, 5TH STREET, PULLANGUDI-627 855, TIRUNELVELI DIST., TAMIL NADU. 3. SRI. SREEKANTH THAMBALLA, RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.GF-006, GROUND FLOOR, NO. 111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 22.08.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.168/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS IN CRP NO. 845/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. ARINDAM ROY SRI. RAMESH S.P.] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H R ARJUN PRASAD, S/O. H.R.RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SMT. PADMINI PRASAD, W/O. H.R.ARJUN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.TF-306, 3RD FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.156/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 846/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. AARINDAM ROY SRI. S.P. RAMESH] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MEENAKSHI V DESHPANDE, SRI. VIJAYENDRA DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SRI. VIJAYENDRA DESHPANDE, S/O. SRI. VASANT S. DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.FF-103, 1ST FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO.3673/111/1, SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.165/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. IN CRP NO. 847/2024 BETWEEN: M/S SAINANDANA PRESIDENCY APARTMENTS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION SITUATED AT NO. 111/1, BBMP KATHA NO.3673/111/1, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 076 [DULY REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY] ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHRIRAM KRISHNA MURTHY IYER, S/O. A.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 2. SMT. SUSHMA SHRIRAM, W/O. SHRIRAM KRISHNA MURTHY LYER, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.GF-003, GROUND FLOOR, NO.111/1, KATHA NO. 3673/111 SAI NANDANA PRESIDENCY, 5TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 076. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH ADITHYA J., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.169/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Harish Babu K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these cases, Sri. Vasanth Adithya J., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner - Sainandana Presidency Apartments Owners' Association, is before the Court calling in question an order dated 31.08.2024 passed in S.C.Nos.164/2022, 167/2022, 157/2022, 163/2022, 166/2022, 162/2022, 160/2022, 155/2022, 159/2022, 161/2022, 158/2022, 168/2022, 156/2022, 165/2022, 169/2022 which was filed seeking recovery of maintenance and other incidental charges from the hands of the owners of the Apartment complex. The concerned Court rejects the claim of these petitioners on the score that on the same issue, O.S.No.146/20222 is pending - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS adjudication before the concerned Court. The concerned Court in S.C.No.164/2022, has passed the following order: "7. Heard the arguments on both sides. Both learned counsels have field written arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by both plaintiff and defendants and perused the entire documents placed on record. 8. The following points arise for my consideration :- 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought? 2. What order or decree? 9. My answer to the above points are as follows:- Point No.1 - In the Negative Point No.2 - As per final order for the following :- ::REASONS:: 10. Point No.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are also the members of the association and are owning and residing in flat No.FF-106, First floor of the Sainandana Presidency Apartments. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the association has passed resolution and decided to divide the maintenance charges for common usage equally between the members and also notified the same to all the members. In case of failure to pay the maintenance amount such member will be liable to pay penalty of Rs.20/- per day. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that after passing of the resolution the defendants have not paid the maintenance charges for common usage. The defendants are due of Rs.11,763.25/- per quarter for a period 01.01.2020 to - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 31.12.2020 and Rs.11,765/- per quarter for the period 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021. The defendants are due by total sum of Rs.21,417/- including penalty of Rs.7,960/-. In this regard demand notice has been issued on the defendants. In this regard demand notice has been issued on the defendants. But the defendants in spite of it have neither paid the maintenance charges nor replied to the notice. 11. As already stated supra, the plaintiff association in order to prove its case has examined its authorized person as PW.1 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. PW.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. She has reiterated the entire plaint averments in his affidavit. Ex.P.1 is the Authorization letter. Ex.P.2 is the certificate of registration of society. Ex.P.10 is the statement of account. As per this document the defendants are due by sum of Rs.21,417/ including penalty of Rs.7,960/ as on 31.12.2021 towards maintenance charges. Ex.P4 is the legal notice and Ex.P.5 to 7 are the 3 postal fee paid receipts. These documents show that the plaintiff's association demanded the defendants to pay the balance maintenance charges. 12. The defendant No.1 has examined DW.1 and got marked 34 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.35. DW.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief, he has reiterated the entire written averments in his affidavit. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that written arguments that, the resolution was taken is based on majority opinion. The resolution was taken in a duly constituted EGM on 11.10.2020, attended by 20 members including three executive members, having required quorum. The resolution was taken based on decision by the members present in that EGM. The resolution was accepted by 15 members out of 20 members present in the said EGM dated 11.10.2020. The resolution was not challenged, opposed by any of the member attended the said EGM. Five attendee members remained neutral, gave - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 100% acceptance. On insistence of one member, committee organized another EGM on 30 Oct 2020 and provided opportunities to further discuss on the findings and MoM of 11 Oct 2020. As there was no consensus among members on other than equal maintenance charges, committee declared in the EGM of 30 Oct 2020 that the resolution taken on 11 Oct 2020 that the resolution taken based on the majority opinion, was final was final, and published the MoM for all members to take note of the resolution. As members did not pay the outstanding dues, committee initiated legal action followed by filing of recover suite. This action of the committee has approval of the members obtained through EGMs dated 14 Feb 2021 & 14 Mar 2021. Out of the 16 defendants only 10 defendants had preferred a suit on OS No.146/2022. The defendants in SC No.156/2022, SC No.157/2022, 158/2022, 159/2022, 161/2022, 163/2022, 165/2022, 166/2022, 167/2022, 169/2022. Other defendant had not filed any suit against the plaintiff association, which clearly demonstrate that out of 53 members only 12 members i.e., 10 defendants had preferred No.156/2022, 163/2022, 165/2022, 158/2022 were not interested to proceed with the case, hence personally they did not appear before the court. But the said Suraj had mislead them and obtained the GPA from the said defendant. This court had already allowed the suit in SC No.170/2022,and directing the defendant to the suit. Sri. Suraj who represented as GPA holder for defendant in SC No.156/2022, 163/2022, 165/2022, 158/2022 were not interested to proceed with the case, hence personally they did not appear before the court. But the said Suraj had mislead them and obtained the GPA from the said defendant. This court had already allowed the suit in SC No.170/2022, and directing the defendant to pay the due maintenance amount. 14. The learned counsel for defendants have submitted the written arguments that, as per the important documents and the relevant provisions of the Act - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS applicable in Karnataka the maintenance amount has to be collected on square feet basis. Since beginning the defendants are paying the maintenance amount on square feet basis without any complaints and thereby they are not defaulters and not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the suit plaint. In the present case most important point to be decided is whether the maintenance amount must be paid on square feet basis or equal basis. At the first the plaintiff must prove in the competent court that the plaintiff association is entitled to collect the maintenance amount on equal basis. If the competent court i.e., Civil Court decides that the change of mode of maintenance is legal and plaintiff is entitled to collect the maintenance amount on equal basis irrespective of size of the flats then only suit for recovery of the claimed sum will be maintainable. When the matter is pending before the competent court and before the judgment is passed in the said case (O.S.146/2022) the plaintiff is not entitled for the claimed sum. Sai Nandana Presidency Association Building is consisting of 53 flats in which 21 flats are 2BHK and 32 flats re 3 BHK. The measurements of all these flats are different. Plaintiff association came into existence in the year 2015. At the time of formation of the association came into existence in the year 2015. At the time of formation of the association certain bye-laws were framed and it has been registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act,1960. In the sale deed of all the members of this association there is specific mention in Schedule F that the members or the owners of the flats must pay the maintenance amount on proportionate basis. Even as per Section 10 and other relevant provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 the maintenance amount has to be paid on the basis of percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. Accordingly, the association decided to collect the maintenance amount on square feet basis. Since the date of inception of the association plaintiff started collecting the maintenance amount on square feet basis. Since the inception of the association in 2015 till - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS the end of third quarter of 2020 all the members of the association i.e.,owners of 53 flats were paying the maintenance amount on square feet basis. This fact has been clearly admitted by PW.1 during the cross examination. 15. Further argued that the first time certain members who are the owners of 3BHK flats raised the point that the maintenance amount has to be collected on equal basis irrespective of the size and measurement of flats. This matter was discussed during various meetings of the association and in those meetings the 2BHK owners strongly resisted any move of change of mode of maintenance from square feet basis to equal basis (the email copies produced by the defendants can be referred). By taking undue advantage of the minority of 2BHK owners the office bearers of the association got created the alleged resolution as per Ex.P.3. Based on the Ex.P.3 the association started demanding the maintenance from 2BHK owners on equal share basis for which these 2BHK owners fought by tooth and nail, even various emails were sent opposing any such. Before the alleged resolution, opinion of the members was sought and some of the members are assumed to have provided their opinion. It is to be kindly noted that the opinion poll was conducted randomly by keeping the opinion pool forms in the apartment security kiosk. It cannot be validated if authorized owner of a flat has provided the opinion. Hence, the opinion pool also invalid. Further, the managing committee and the association members did not take any action as the opinion poll was for mere opinion only. As per the bye-law#5 (5) the voting must be done in person which was never done and only a random opinion poll was done. Hence the members of the association in 2019 did not decide to go for the amendment. The documentary proof of this can be referred in Defendants documents as a screen shot of WhatsApp communication between the 2020 president - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS and 2019 office bearer who conducted the opinion pool. This proof mentions”… 6) There was no any action item on the 2019 committee related to this activity. 7) The house did not decide to go for the amendment; hence the 2019 committee did not proceed with any amendment of by-laws”. For amendment of the bye-laws certain procedure must be followed as defined in the bye-law #5 (5), # 33 and # 39. As per the bye-law # 33 no amendment shall take place unless and until it is approved by 75% of owners. No doubt amendment means any addition, deletion, correction, or update. In the present case no additional bye-law came to be framed and have not been submitted to the competent authority. In fact, in view of bylaw #40 even if any such addition of bye-law takes place it will be supplementary to contents of sale deed i.e., Schedule F and provisions of KAO Act 1972. As per Schedule F of the sale deed and relevant provisions KAO Act 1972 the maintenance amount has to be collected on square feet basis and accordingly these defendants and other 2BHK owners are regularly paying till date the maintenance amount on square feet basis. This fact has been clearly admitted by PW1 during the cross examination. In fact, the 3BHK owners are the real defaulters. Previously the 3BHK owners were paying the maintenance amount on per square feet basis and after the alleged resolution the 3BHK owners are paying lesser maintenance amount. 16. Further argued that the claimed sum in the plaint is for the periods 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020 and 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021, however the Ex.P.3 is bearing the dates 11.10.2020 and 30.10.2020. In the same Ex.P.3. It is mentioned the change in maintenance mode shall be prospective, However, the claim made in the suit plaint is retrospective. It is also not known on what basis - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS the plaintiff has claimed the amount which has been mentioned in the suit plaint. There is no base for calculation of the claim amount. In fact, these defendants are regularly paying the maintenance amount as per the sale deed and relevant provisions of KA) Act 1972. These defendants are not the defaulters of any amount and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount. 17. The Association bye-law section APARTMENT OWNERS – RULES AND OBLIGATIONS (1) (ii) mentions “…the penal interest for delayed payment, chargeable @ 20 per day for a period of 30 days of default from the date of demand.” For any member defaulting on the payment, the penal amount would be a maximum of Rs.600/- only. However, the plaint has falsely and illegally claimed around eight thousand rupees as penalty for alleged due sum amount. In fact, these defendants are not due of any amount so question of claiming any penalty of the said amount does not arise at all. When the association started demanding excess amount from 2 BHK owners some of the 2 BHK owners approached the City Court by filing O S 146/2022 which is still pending before the Hon’ble XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. In the said suit illegl demand of the plaintiff association is challenged and said matter is still pending. Unless and until the said suit is decided plaintiff cannot claim any alleged difference amount as these defendants are paying the same quantum of maintenance from 2015 till this day. 18. Further argued that as per the defendant exhibits produced before this court 3 points are very clear. Point No.1 is that the mode of maintenance is personal dispute between some 3 BHK and 2BHK owners where some 3 BHK owners want to personally and financially gain at expense of 2 BHK owners. Point No.2 is those 3 BHK owners are the same 3 BHK owners who raised the demand in late 2019 to collect the maintenance on equal - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS basis and later since 2020 they are using position on the managing committee of association to forcefully enforce the alleged resolution for their personal financial gain. The 2 BHK owners are not alleged to contest the elections for the post in managing committee. The 2BHK owners have substantially and consistently protested against illegal equal maintenance demand. Point No.3 one of those 3 BHK members has filed multiple individual cases in this court against 2BHK owners by misrepresenting to this court as the president of the association. The 2 BHK owners have not violated any bye-law of the association. It may be kindly noted that as per bye-law “#32(4) SUE AND TO BE SUED” the association can sue in its own name represented by President or vice president or secretary in all common causes whenever a legal action is found necessary however it cannot sue in case of disputes between the members or disputes of personal nature as described in points #1, #2 and #3 above. 19. Further argued that the plaintiff association has been registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Though association ought to have been registered under KAO Act 1972, but it appears on the legal advice it has been registered under wrong act. In the sale deed there is clear mention that association must be registered under KAO Act,1972. Instead of correcting the mistake the present office bearers of the association are blaming to the then office bearers of the association. After coming to know the mistake it is bounden duty of the present office bearers to rectify the mistake. In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of the division bench of our own Hon’ble High Court in WRIT appeal number 974 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019. While deciding the said WRIT appeal Hon’ble High Court has cancelled the registration of the association which was registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and issued direction to register under KAO Act, 1972. The Hon’ble High Court has elaborately discussed Section 3 of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS The certified copy of the judgment rendered in the said WRIT appeal has also been produced here with before this Hon’ble court for kind perusal. In view of the above decision the claim of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. 20. On careful scrutinize oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, it is forthcoming that as per plaint allegation, the plaintiff has stated that as per EGM, the resolution passed in the said meeting that the maintenance charges paying on the equally basis all the apartment owners. The contention of defendant that as per Ex.D-1 to 3, the defendants are only paying the maintenance charges on proportionate basis. Perusal the documents produced by the both parties. Ex.D-2 certified copy of proceedings of the General Body meeting dated 02-12-2015, in point No.39 Amendment of By-laws- these Byelaws may be and by the association in a special meeting or in an annual general meeting called for such purposes, After giving sufficient notice. Amendments shall take effect only when approved by the majority of members in a meeting as provided above. 21. It is clear that any amend the by-laws, as per above point, the annual general meeting valid for such purpose. The plaintiff has main contention that the plaintiff has passed the resolution on the poll opinion, but the poll opinion was conducting and passing the resolution is not mention the board resolution on Ex.D-2. Ex.D-3 sale deed, is shown that in Schedule F- The purchaser/s and their respective successors in interest, heirs, representatives and assigns in proportion to their share along with other purchaser/s in proportion of their shares. Shall be - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS deemed to have accepted the following conditions and to have contracted to bear the following expenses. 22. It is clearly stated that the paying the maintenance charges on the basis of proportionate basis. The claim of the plaintiff clearly denied by defendant and he contended the alleged document Ex.P-2 EGM resolution placed by plaintiff was created for the purpose of this suit. The burden lies on plaintiff to plead and prove the contents of document. In the instant case, plaintiff fails plead material facts, but plaintiff produced some evidence. In this background, it is wrathful to refer and relied recent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. So in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ appeal No. 974/2019 (GM-KSR) AND Writ appeal No. 1206-1211/2019 (GM-KSR) in present case, the evidence adduced by plaintiff regarding Ex.P3 is not helpful to the case of plaintiff. The main defence of the defendant is also same, the documents are created by the 3 BHK owners, the said resolution is not accepted by the defendants and they have challenged to the said resolution before the competent court bearing No O.S.No.146/2022, hence the EGM resolution as EX.P-3 is not a become final. The plaintiff utterly failed in prove before this court that as per EGM board resolution and defendant did not paid the maintenance charges to the plaintiff association. Further on careful perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiff pertaining to suit resolution not fully supports the case of plaintiff. In view of the reasons stated supra, the plaintiff failed to prove the suit and also failed to prove he is entitle to relief of recovery of money as prayed in the suit. Hence this court did not accept the story of the plaintiff. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief from hands of this court. Hence issue No.1 is accordingly answered in Negative. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 23. Point No.2:- As a result of my foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ::ORDER:: The suit of Plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as costs. Draw decree accordingly." 3. I do not find any error apparent to interfere with the orders passed by the concerned Court, as admittedly all the issues are at large before the Competent Civil Court in O.S.No.146/2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, if this order is sustained, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners in this suit. 5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to observe that all the contentions urged before this Court in these petitions, the petitioner would be at liberty to urge in whatever capacity they are before the Competent Civil Court in O.S.No.146/2022. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that challenging the registration of the Association itself, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19788/2025 is pending consideration. 7. The pendency of the said petition also will not come in the way of the concerned Court progressing with a suit in O.S.146/2022. 8. I again iterate that the petitioner is at liberty to urge all the contentions in the said suit that are projected in the case at hand. 9. In that light, these petitions are disposed with the liberty as observed hereinabove. 10. The disposal of these petitions or sustenance of the impugned order will not come in the way of the petitioner's association filing appropriate application before the concerned Court for appropriate relief at the appropriate stage. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32760 CRP No. 833 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 832 of 2024 CRP No. 834 of 2024 AND 12 OTHERS 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petitions are disposed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all the contentions in O.S.No.146/2022 that are projected in the case at hand. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:SG