1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.504 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

ANJANAPPA

S/O.CHIKKANANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

NO.29, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD

TATA SILK FARM

THYAGARAJANAGARA

BANGALORE – 28

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAMESH CHANDRA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

C.JAYARAMA

S/O.CHIKKANANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

NO.29/1, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD

TATA SILK FARM

BANGALORE – 28

2.

THE COMMISSIONER

BRUHAT BANGALORE MANAHANAGARA PALIKE

BANGALORE – 560 002

3.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

BASAVANAGUDI SUB-DIVISION

2

WARD NO.154, C.T.BED

BASAVANAGUDI SUB-DIVISION-1

BANGALORE SOUTH

OPP. S.S.M. SCHOOL, B.B.M.P.

BANGALORE – 560 028

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.W.ARBATTI, ADV., FOR R-1)

(BY SRI.S.NAGARAJULU NAIDU, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2012 PASSED ON

I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.2256/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII

ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE

I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC.

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order

dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under

Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in OS No.2256/2011.

2.

Petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit filed

by respondent No.1 seeking direction to the first

defendant – revision petitioner to demolish or to remove

3

the violated portion of the building constructed by him

contrary to the approved building plan and for issue of

mandatory injunction in that regard.

3.

Plaint averments would reveal that grievance

of the plaintiff has been that house belonging to the

plaintiff is situated adjacent to the premises belonging

to the revision petitioner – first defendant. As defendant

No.1

started

constructing

his

building

violating

building bye-laws without leaving set back area as

required in law, he represented to the authorities of the

Corporation, who had indeed initiated action and

passed orders directing demolition of the violated

portion. But, first defendant successfully stalled the

demolition by approaching the Civil Court in OS

No.2256/2011 wherein he has obtained an interim

order restraining demolition of the alleged unauthorized

construction.

4

4.

It is further contended by the plaintiff that

action of the first defendant in putting up illegal

construction in violation of the approved building plan

has resulted in serious prejudice to his interest and has

affected his right to natural air and light.

5.

In the application filed seeking rejection of

the plaint, first defendant has contended that on

perusal of the plaint averments, no case had been made

out for grant of any relief based on any cause of action

and that the one sought was barred by law because as

per

the

provisions

of

the

Karnataka

Municipal

Corporation Act, 1976 particularly Section 482 of the

Act, no suit shall be instituted against the Corporation

or any municipal authority regarding any negligence or

default in implementation of the provisions or execution

of the Rules. It is also his submission that sufficient

5

mechanism has been provided in the Corporation Act in

terms of Sections 320 and 321 of the said Act, hence

the Court below was not right and justified in

dismissing the application because the suit for such

prayer was apparently barred.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent supports

the order passed by the Court below.

7.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and as rightly held by the Court below, the

allegation and assertion of the plaintiff that first

defendant has put up construction of his building

contrary to the approved building plan and in violation

of the building bye-laws without leaving any margi