IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2329 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri M. Rajagopal S/o Late Mallappa Aged about 62 years R/at No.50, 20th Main Padmanabha Nagara Bengaluru – 560 070 (By Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate) AND:
Sri Kannaiah Naidu S/o K.Krishnappa Naidu Major in age R/at No.725, 14th Main 19th Cross, BSK II Stage Bengaluru – 560 070 (By Sri K.L.Ashok, Advocate) …Appellant ... Respondent This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 04.03.2017 on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.10504/2015 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-25), allowing IA No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the order passed by the trial Court on IA No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. While passing this order, the trial Court made it clear that the plaintiff should not put up any construction in the suit schedule property.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has not at all put up any construction.
4. I think that the trial Court has exercised discretion properly on the basis of the materials placed before it. There is no need to interfere.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that because of the impugned order, the appellant/defendant is not able to park the vehicles in the suit property. If this is the case of the appellant/defendant, an application may be made before the trial Court seeking modification of the order. The trial Court may decide the said application on its merits. With these observations, appeal stands disposed of.
KMV/-
SD/- JUDGE