Heard Sri H.V.Harish, learned counsel for the

appellant

and

Sri

Jose

K

Sebastian,

learned

counsel for caveators/respondents 1 to 4.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff being

aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2021 passed

by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge,

Bengaluru

city

(CCH-68)

in

O.S.No.2115/2021,

dismissing

the

plaintiff’s

application for temporary injunction filed under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

In a suit for bare injunction against the

defendants, the plaintiff filed an application for

temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1

:: 4 ::

and

2

CPC

to

restrain

the

defendants

from

disconnecting the essential services. In the first

instance the trial Court granted exparte order of

temporary

injunction

and

thereafter

the

defendants

made

an

application

under

Order

XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating the said order. By

the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed IA

No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules

1 and 2 CPC and allowed IA No.III filed by the

defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.

The

plaintiff

is

the

owner

of

an

apartment in SLS Signature apartments and that

the defendants 1 to 4 are also owners of the other

apartments. The plaintiff’s main case is that the

defendants

are

unauthorizedly

collecting

maintenance

charges

from

all

the

apartment

owners. According to law, an association of

apartment owners must be formed. No association

has

been

formed.

The

defendants

have no

authority to collect maintenance charges. On the

:: 5 ::

other hand, defendants 1 to 4 contend that they

are the office bearers of an association which has

come into existences according to law. The

defendants have contended so in the written

statement, but it appears that they have not

produced any document in proof of an association

having come into existence according to law.

5.

The order sheet of this appeal dated

12.10.2021

indicates

that

the

appellant

was

directed

to

deposit

Rs.1,00,000/-

without

prejudice to his rights to see that the essential

services to his apartment is not disconnected.

Accordingly, the appellant deposited Rs.1,00,000/-

in the office of this Court on 22.10.2021.

6.

It is to be stated that whether or not, the

defendants are the office bearers of a legally

constituted association of the apartment owners,

the appellant has to pay maintenance charges

every month. If he does not pay, other apartment

:: 6 ::

owners will have to suffer. In fact the Trial Court

has said that since the appellant is using the

amenities, he has to pay maintenance charges.

This observation of the Trial Court cannot be said

to be wrong. The appellant has to pay charges for

the amenities that he is using. In this view, I do

not find any good ground to interfere with the

impugned order.

7.

The

appellant

is

hereby

directed

to

deposit monthly maintenance charges in the trial

Court without fail for every month till disposal of

the

suit.

This

deposit

is

of-course

without

prejudice to the rights of the appellant.

8.

If there is any arrears, it shall also be

deposited within fifteen (15) days from today. The

appellant shall also file a memo of calculation

regarding payments that he has made before this

Court and the Trial Court. If the deposit is made

:: 7 ::

regularly by the appellant, the essential services

and amenities shall not be disconnected.

The appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-