Civil courts cannot grant temporary injunctions for unauthorized construction disputes when jurisdictionity lies with municipal authorities under specific legislative provisions.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners – defendant Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section XXXIX Rule 3(a) of CPC, seeking temporary injunction, in O.S.No.5599/2025, is allowed.

2. Heard Sri S.Sreevatsa, learned senior counsel for Sri T.N.Viswanatha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.M.Nagabushan, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The impugned order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the concerned Court granting temporary injunction reads as follows:

“Issue accused-interim ex-parte injunction against the defendants as sought by he plaintiffs in I.A.No.1 till next date of hearing. The plaintiffs shall comply the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC. Issue suit summons and notice on I.A.1 to the defendants returnable by 18.08.2025.”

It is this order that has driven the defendants to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners – defendants, would vehemently contend that the suit itself was not entertainable before the concerned Court as the issue would clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Zonal Commissioner under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short ‘the BBMP Act’). It is not that the respondents - plaintiffs have not exhausted that remedy. The plaintiffs have registered complaints before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) and the BBMP has inspected the property of the respondents - plaintiffs and notwithstanding the same, the suit is filed seeking mandatory injunction. Learned senior counsel would seek to place reliance upon two judgments rendered by the learned single Judges of this Court to buttress his submission. They are in the cases ofDr. K. Panduranga Nayak vs. Jayashree reported inILR 1989 KAR 3104 and S. Sundar Raj vs. Vijayendra Kumar and Others reported in2001 SC OnLine Kar 39. He would further submit that it is only the Municipal Authorities or now, the BBMP have to act upon the said complaint and should not approach the civil Court seeking mandatory injunction.

5. Sri C.M. Nagabushan, learned counsel for caveators - respondents would contend that a reasoned order is passed, while granting temporary injunction by the concerned Court and the petitioners have to exhaust the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC by filing an application seeking vacation of the interim order and not approach this Court directly by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that this Court cannot entertain the petition straight away as the proceedings is not barred under the Code of Civil Procedure. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners – defendants and the respondents – plaintiffs are neighbours. The respondents - plaintiffs register complaints dated 24.07.2025 and 26.07.2025, before the BBMP alleging that the petitioners are undertaking unauthorised construction without a sanctioned plan. The BBMP issues a notice to the petitioners and inspects the property on 28.07.2025. The report of the inspection is yet to come out.

8. In the interregnum, notwithstanding the complaints made by the plaintiffs and the inspection so conducted by the BBMP Authorities, the plaintiffs institute the suit on 02.08.2025 seeking the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be plea