IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE, BCC (BBMP), BANGALORE-560 002.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. POONAM CHAND S/O. SHIVANATH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO. 7, OBAIH LANE, Digitally signed by 2^ND CROSS, COTTONPET, NANJUNDACHARI BANGALORE-560 053.

Location: HIG H COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. KALU SINGH S/O. SHIVANATH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO. 7, OBAIH LANE, 2^ND CROSS, COTTONPET, BANGALORE-560 053.

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE D/W)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE

1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.08.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.1797/2017 ON THE FILE OF XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendant-BBMP in O.S.No.1797/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2024 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and against the appellant-defendant.

2. For orders purpose, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-BBMP and perused the material on record.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant/BBMP seeking for the following relief:

“Suit was filed by the plaintiff on

13.03.2017 and prays to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant by an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, men, or anybody, under or through it from demolishing any portion of the schedule building and or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s construction of the building upon the schedule property and grant such other reliefs.”

The said suit having been contested by the appellant/BBMP, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are constructing building on suit property as per sanctioned plan?

2. Whether defendant proves that plaintiffs have deviated from sanctioned plan and put up construction illegally?

3. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief sought?

5. What order or decree?

5. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked while the appellant/defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal proceeded to decree the suit against the appellant/defendant by holding as under:

“9. ISSUES NO.1 TO 4 :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court. The present suit is one for Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendant authority from demolishing any portion of the schedule building and interfering with the plaintiffs construction of building and from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs in order to establish that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that they have not floated any building rules, got examined the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and he has in his affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint. According to P.W.1, the