IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR M.F.A. NO.4222 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. MADDURAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. NO.88/1, 14TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058 …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. HUCHALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.90, 14TH CROSS NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058 2. SMT. MARIYAMMA W/O. SRI MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.70, 15TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 058 3. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT. NO.69, 15TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 058 4. SMT. KARAGAMMA W/O. M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT. NO.89, 15TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 058 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHAITANYA S.G. ADVOCATE) *** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (R) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO.3 IN O.S.NO.7018/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-08) DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant files a memo dated 04.12.2019, stating that the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed on IA No.3 in OS No.7018/2016 by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-08), wherein the appellant has sought for restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property or putting up any construction over the same. He submits that pursuant to dismissal of the said application, the respondents have put up construction over the suit schedule property. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents denies the same and he submits that he was in possession and he had already put up construction in the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for appellant submits that he has filed application before the trial Court for amending the plaint for the relief of mandatory injunction. Therefore, this appeal may not survive for consideration.
2. The memo is taken on record.
3. Accordingly, placing the submissions on record, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VK