IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.2239 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. GHISULAL SONI M SON OF LATE MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.609, NEW MUNICIPAL NO.31/1, 4TH BLOCK, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560010. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI MAINA VARMA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.THOMAS V J SON OF JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING NO.162/B, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560010. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRAPPA TOSIKANI, ADVOCATE) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2015 ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.3676/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, arguments are heard finally on merits.
2. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent.
3. This appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2015 dismissing I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, passed by the XXIV City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant or his agents or any other persons from putting up any illegal construction or structures over schedule ‘B’ property by blocking common passage and free air and sunlight to the schedule ‘A’ property.
5. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant has submitted that, so far no construction has been put up on the open area measuring 5 X 27 feet, which is described in schedule ‘B’ property. The original suit before the Trial Court is posted for plaintiff’s evidence. Interim order was granted by this Court on 12.05.2015 and subsequently it was extended on every date of hearing.
6. Now the counsel for both the parties have submitted that the evidence will be led before the Trial Court and the original suit shall be decided on merits.
Considering the submissions, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit.
BSR Sd/-
JUDGE