IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4478 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHANTHA NAGESHA RAO SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LR's

1. SRI. B.N. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE B. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI. B.N. LOKESH S/O LATE B. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.1007

26^TH MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041

3. SMT. B.N. VEENA Digitally signed W/O SRI. M.R. RANGARAJU by ANJALI M Location: H igh AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Court of R/AT NO.119, 5^TH MODEL HOUSE STREET Karnataka BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SHIVANANDA SHARMA MEMORIAL RASHTRIYA, VIDYALAYA DEGREE COLLEGE, NO.17, 26^TH MAIN

36^TH CROSS, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY

2. RASHTRIYA SHIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST R.V.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE

3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.12.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.3213/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-25), BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule

1(r) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned III Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in OS No.3213/2019, whereby, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the appellants (herein original plaintiffs) seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from operating a sewerage treatment plant (STP) located in the set back area adjoining the plaintiffs' residential property.

The factual matrix of the case are as under:

2. It is the case of the appellants that, they are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, a senior citizen then, who had instituted the suit during her lifetime seeking both mandatory and permanent injunctions against the operation of the STP by the first and second defendants. It is the specific allegation of the appellants that STP has been installed illegally by the respondents in the set back area of the property bearing Schedule-A which abuts the plaintiff's residential house. It is further alleged that the said STP causes persistent foul smell, environmental nuisance and infringes upon the plaintiff's rights to clean air, peaceful residence and dignified living and thereby constituting a direct violation of their fundamental rights.

3. The main grievance of the appellants is that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the nature of the relief sought and the serious hardship caused due to the illegal installation and continuous operation of the STP. But, the interim application so filed by the appellants was dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order challenged in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Abhinav R., argued that, the trial Court erred in ignoring the relevant materials, including statutory notifications and guidelines which prohibit the establishment of STPs in set back areas. He would submit that, the plaintiffs are particular about the office memorandum dated 1.3.2021, which prescribes that STPs shall preferably be located away from residential premises and not in set back areas. Learned counsel for the appellants have also brought to the notice of this Court that alternative spaces such as southern portion of Schedule A property which is currently be