- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3249 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHARADA SHELTERS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS OFFICE NO.81, NANDA DEEPA DOLLARS SCHEME LAYOUT, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR - SMT. S. SHARADA. 2. SMT. S. SHARADA W/O M.R. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.81, NANDA DEEPA, DOLLARS SCHEME LAYOUT, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-96. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KEDARESH R.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGANATHA S/O KASTURIRANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FLAT NO.401, 2. JEEVAN KAMKAR S/O KRISHNAMURTHY.K.S. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, FLAT NO.202, 3. SANDHYA RANI K.S. W/O DINESH B.N. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, FLAT NO.203, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 4. B. SUMAN KALYANI W/O ARUNA PRASAD .A AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FLAT NO.204, 5. SHARDA MANKAD W/O SHIVANARAYANA MANKAD AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, FLAT NO.205, 6. GOPU KUMAR .G S/O GANGADHARAN P.G. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FLAT NO.301, 7. D.K. TULSI W/O SURESH GIRI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, FLAT NO.302, 8. PRAVEEN XAVIER D’SOUZA S/O BAZIL LIGORI D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FLAT NO.304, 9. ADITYA .B.M S/O MADHUSUDAN R. BIDI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, FLAT NO.305, 10. S. RAMKUMAR S/O V. SAIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FLAT NO.201, 11. LATHA M PRAKASH W/O MOHAN PRAKASH .S AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, FLAT NO.402, 12. MALAIYARASA PANDIAN S/O PERLASAMY .S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, FLAT NO.403, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 13. RAJANI RAVEENDRAN W/O ARUN KUMAR ELAMPARAMBIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, FLAT NO.404, 14. PRABHAKAR B. NAYAK S/O BOMMANNA B. NAYAK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, FLAT NO.405, ALL ARE R/AT MUNICIPAL NO.67/10, BRUNDAVANA APARTMENT COMPLEX, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM WARD, ASHOKAPURAM MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560022. 15. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE CORPORATE OFFICE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 002. 16. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BBMP, WEST ZONE, SAMPIGE ROAD BASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIL KALGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO R-14) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.119/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26), PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.119/2025 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, has been allowed in-part. 2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. The respondent Nos.1 to 14 are the plaintiffs, who have instituted the suit seeking various directions in respect of ‘Brindavana Apartment Complex’, including matters relating to maintenance and common areas. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.4 seeking interim relief pertaining to maintenance of the apartment complex, contribution of maintenance charges, and access to the terrace. The Trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 Court by the impugned order has issued following directions: “ORDER I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs U/O XXXIX R1 & 2 of CPC is allowed in part and the following directions are issued:- (i) The maintenance of Brindavana Apartment Complex shall be carried out as per the memorandum of understanding entered between the plaintiffs and defendants on 29.04.2023 until the formation of Co-operative Society/Company as required under Section 10 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1972. (ii) It shall be the responsibility of defendants to pay or to see that the monthly maintenance charges are paid in respect of all the 9 unsold flats of the defendants. (iii) The plaintiff No.8 Mr.Praveen Xavier D'Souza is personally accountable to upkeep the common areas and facilities by collecting an equal contribution from each of 25 flats and disbursing the amount to the respective agencies/ for outgoing expenses and the income and expenditure - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 statement shall be circulated before 5th of every month (as far as possible) to all the apartment owners and the defendants. The monthly maintenance charges shall be paid by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants before 10th of each month to the plaintiff No.8 as decided by the plaintiffs in the minutes of meeting held on 19.03.2025. (iv) The plaintiff No.8 shall submit a report along with the accounts to this court on every three months during the subsequent hearing dates. (v) The defendants shall handover the key of the terrace to plaintiff No.8 within seven days from today to look after the water tank, solar water heaters, cable, dish antenna for the purpose of maintenance of the apartment complex. If there is any confusion or complication, the parties are at liberty to approach this court seeking clarificatory order. This arrangement is purely temporary until further orders.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conditions imposed by the Trial Court, particularly in the operative portion, unsustainable in law and require modification. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23773 MFA No. 3249 of 2025 5. on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Trial Court, while exercising discretion, has issued directions. It is also noticed that the operative portion of the impugned order, it is stated that the arrangement is purely ‘temporary in nature’ and the Trial Court has itself reserved ‘liberty to the parties to seek clarification.’ 6. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by reserving liberty to the appellants to approach the Trial Court for appropriate modification. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with liberty as observed above. 7. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40