IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR R.F.A.NO.1013 OF 2018 (P-INJ) BETWEEN:
1. VIVEK. R S/O. LATE RANGAPPA NO.54/3-1 (OLD NO.12) 6TH MAIN APPURAO ROAD MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE-560018 2. GIRIYAPPA B.G S/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH NO.54/6 (OLD NO.12), 6TH MAIN APPURAO ROAD MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE–560018 3. VARALAKSHMI W/O. RUDRESH NO.54/3-3 (OLD NO.12), 6TH MAIN APPURAO ROAD MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE–560018 4. K.YOGANARASIMHA MURTHY S/O. LATE H.KRISHNE GOWDA NO.54/5, (OLD NO.12), ‘SRIDEVI NILAYA’ 6TH MAIN, APPURAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VEDACHALA, M.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU–560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KEMPEGOWDANAGAR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU–560 002 3. SRI B.A.KRISHNA KUMAR S/O. LATE B.V.ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.12, MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN 6TH MAIN, APPURAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU -560 018 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.9.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.4089/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The appellants were not parties in O.S.No.4089/2016. Therefore, they have filed I.A.No.2/2018 seeking permission to prefer the appeal. The suit was filed by respondent No.3 in this appeal. Respondent No.3 instituted a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendants from interfering with his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as described in the plaint. According to the appellants the suit schedule property is a portion of road. Now, suit is decreed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, they are interested in retaining the road.
2. If according to the appellants suit property is a portion of the road meant for the use of residents of that locality, they can file a representative suit seeking declaration that suit property is portion of road. The decree of permanent injunction is against the Corporation only. They cannot be called “Aggrieved Persons” to prefer an appeal. Therefore, I.A.No.2/2018 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main appeal, I.A.No.3/2018 filed for production for additional documents does not survive for consideration and the same stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ