- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3229 OF 2016 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SADASHIV APARTMENT OWNER ASSOCIATION NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN RICHMOND CIRCLE BANGALORE - 25 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT C H DEVARJ 2. C H DEVARAJ S/O LATE C C HANUMANTHA RAO A/A 68 YEARS, GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES NO.14, K S V COMPLEX, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE - 01. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. K.S.NAGAVENI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUMITHRA M BHAT W/O H MANJUNATH BHAT A/A 70 YEARS, 2. MANJUNATHA BHAT S/O LATE H SUNDAR BHAT A/A 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 BOTH R/A NO.203, SADASHIV APARTMENTS , NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 3. C.D. VIJAY RAJ S/O C H DEVARAJ MAJOR BY AGE APARTMENT NO.003 SADASHIV APARTMENTS , NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 4. C.D. SANJAY RAJ S/O C H DEVARAJ MAJOR BY AGE APARTMENT NO.004, SADASHIV APARTMENTS , NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 5. ZAVER G.DIVECHA D/O LATE BYRAM P.GARIVALA A/A 69 YEARS, R/A NO.202, SADASHIV APARTMENTS , NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 6. SATHYAN PUTHOOR S/O LATE NANU P A/A NO.102, SADASHIV APARTMENTS , NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 7. ANJANA CHATTERJEE W/O BEN PAMPOSE MAJOR BY AGE R/A NO.101, SADASHIV APARTMENT, NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 8. NIRANJAN REDDY S/O SEETHARAM MAJOR BY AGE R/A NO.104, SADASHIV APARTMENT, NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 9. VIJAY RAM S/O SEETHARAM MAJOR BY AGE R/A NO.002, SADASHIV APARTMENT, NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 10. ABDUL KHUDDUS S/O MOHAMMED SULAIMAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A NO.001, SADASHIV APARTMENT, NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. 11. SMT LEKHA PAKKALA W/O DR DIWAKAR PAKKALA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.201, SADASHIV APARTMENT, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 NO.20, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 25. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THRIBHUVAN CHAKRAVARTHY.H.Y, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.GANESH SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 AND R10 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 05.07.2016, NOTICE TO R3, R4, R7, R8, R9 & R11 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED23.04.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.6 IN O.S NO.4555/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.6 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 23.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.VI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.4555/2014 on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City1 thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that the registration of Sadashivaiah apartment owners association by defendant Nos.1 to 9 is null and void and also for permanent injunction to restore the garden and fountain, which they have destroyed in the Sadashiva apartment situated in the suit schedule ‘B’ property and also for permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 9, their men, agents and servants from putting up any new structure or altering/modifying in the Sadashiva apartment complex. 4. The plaintiffs have filed an application for grant of an order of temporary injunction with a prayer to direct defendant Nos.1 to 9 to handover one set of keys pertaining to the main gate, terrace, generator room, electrical room and office room of association to the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 5. Plaintiff No.1 is claiming to be a purchaser in the Sadashiva apartment as flat No.203 and plaintiff No.1 is the Secretary of the Sadashiva apartment owners association. When this being the fact, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have formed another association and got it registered before the District Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Therefore, it is pleading of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 to 9 on the guise of forming and registering another association are now causing obstruction to the common utility areas and also trying to disturb/alter the structures on the common areas. 6. When this being the fact, the Trial Court formed an opinion that plaintiff No.1 being owner of one flat bearing No.203 and secretary of the Sadashiva apartment owners association and when defendant Nos.1 to 9 have formed another association and got it registered before the District Registrar, the only prayer of the plaintiffs is to handover one set of keys regarding common utilities. If the said keys are not handed over and the plaintiffs are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 not permitted to use common utility areas, then the plaintiffs would be put into loss and injury. Hence, the plaintiffs pray to grant an order of temporary injunction. 7. The Trial Court passed an order directing defendant Nos.1 to 9 to handover one set of keys to the plaintiffs regarding common utility areas. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the purchaser of one flat No.203 in the Sadashiva apartment. Plaintiff No.1 was elected as secretary of the association; thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have also formed an association and got it registered before the District Registrar. According to the plaintiff it is rival association. Now, the dispute is regarding usage of common utility services and defendant Nos.1 to 9 by forming another association are now obstructing the usage of common utility services. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit. 8. When this being the fact, the dispute between two associations in the same apartment, plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the one flat No.203; therefore, both the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 9 have right to use common utility spaces. If defendant Nos.1 to 9 restrained the plaintiffs from using the common areas, it would cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in directing defendant Nos.1 to 9 to handover one set of keys pertaining to the common utility services as above stated. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. 9. Further, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 are directed not to cause disturbance to each other in making use of the common utility services such as garden, terrace, generator room, electrical room and office room of the association. Both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status-quo so far as common utility services concerned without disturbing each other and preserve the character and nature of the common utility services as on today without making any alterations/modifications. If any necessity arises for changing/modifying the common utility services, that shall be done with prior permission of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35128 MFA No. 3229 of 2016 Trial Court in the suit upon making appropriate applications. 10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. 11. The suit is of the year 2014; therefore, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as early as possible. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34