- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38510 WP No. 32337 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 32337 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUBEEN, S/O SATTAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADA MAKAN, HORPETE, CHITRADURGA-577 527. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.BALARAJ.A.C., ADVOCATE) AND: RAHAMATHULLA, S/O LATE.AMEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADA MAKAN HORPETE, CHITRADURGA-577 527. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED FOR PRAYING TO (I) ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN RA NO.25 OF 2021 DATED 03/08/2024 BY RESTORING THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION AS ORDERED TO BE PAID BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN OS NO. 493 OF 2017 DATED 19/04/2021, VIDE ANNEXURE- B AND A. (II) ALTERNATIVELY, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, IN RA Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38510 WP No. 32337 of 2024 NO. 25 OF 2021 DT. 03/08/2024 AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS NO. 493 OF 2017 DATED 19/04/2021 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed seeking in effect to set aside the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in R.A.No.25/2021, whereby, the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 3. The contention is that the suit was filed by the plaintiff – respondent seeking a relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner-defendant to remove the illegal construction raised towards the northern side of the plaintiff's suit schedule property. It is stated that a written statement was filed by the petitioner – defendant, in which, a counter claim was raised seeking dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff - - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38510 WP No. 32337 of 2024 respondent with usual cost along with exemplary cost and to pass a judgment and decree directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant a sum of Rs.50,000/- with cost along with current and future interest @12% per annum from the date of counter claim till realization towards damages and other relief. The petitioner – defendant’s counter claim was decreed partly on 19.04.2021 with costs holding her to be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- with simple interest @6% per annum as damages from the date of filing of the counter claim till the date of realization. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.25/2021 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2021. The point for determination framed, inter alia was whether the judgment passed by the trial Court is proper and correct. While deciding point No.1, the appellate Court observed that not contesting the case by the plaintiff clearly showed that the plaintiff had filed a vexatious suit against the defendant. 5. The plaintiff had stated that his occupation is that of a petty merchant but compensation of Rs.25,000/- which was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38510 WP No. 32337 of 2024 awarded by the trial Court was exorbitant. The appellate Court observed that the defendant has not produced any document to show the capacity and ability of the plaintiff regarding the financial capacity. It was held that therefore awarding damages of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the trial Court was too heavy which was reduced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- payable as damages with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of counter claim till the realization. 6. On perusal of the record of this petition it is found that the order of the trial Court, while adjudicating the claim of damages of the defendant raised in her counter claim, has not recorded any reasons for awarding the damages of Rs.25,000/-. Where damages is claimed in a suit, it is incumbent on the Court to record reasons for assessing the quantum of damages to be paid in accordance with the established rules for assessing damages. The defendant in her counter claim had sought damages of Rs.50,000/-. It appears that the trial Court settled for a mean amount of Rs.25,000/- and that too without recording any reasons. At least the order of the appellate Court contains some reasons for reducing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38510 WP No. 32337 of 2024 amount to Rs.10,000/-. It goes without saying that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would not sit as an appellate Court. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the order of the appellate Court reducing the amount of compensation is reasonable, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15