Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishna P vs M/S Lotus Residency Welfare ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28639
WP No. 18575 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18575 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNA P.
S/O LATE RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, LOTUS LAYOUT
BANNERGHATA ROAD
RISHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ANEKAL TLAUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S LOTUS RESIDENCY WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R)
BANNERAGHATTA ROAD
RISHI PUBLIC SCHOOL
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGAURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106
BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally SRI. KRISHNA C.,
signed by AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER
NAGAVENI THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ACT
Location: VIDE REG. NO.DRB3/SOR/280/2019-20,
High Court of
Karnataka DATED 12.09.2019)
2. MEMBER SECRETARY
ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
NO.430, ANNA BUILDING
1ST FLOOR
HENNAGARA GATE
BENGALURU - 560 099
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28639
WP No. 18575 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DECLARING THAT THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 PASSED IN MA
NO.22/25 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL (ANNEXURE-A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE
BOTH ON LAW AND FACTS AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE SET
ASIDE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in M.A.No.22/2025, whereby, upturns the order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, on an application - I.A.No.1, filed under Section XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, in O.S.No.201/2025, which had declined to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff - respondent herein.
2. Heard Sri K.S.Manjunath, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR The petitioner is the defendant, who is constructing a building in the precincts of Lotus Layout. Respondent - Lotus Residency Welfare Association (for short 'the Association') institutes a suit in O.S.No.201/2025, seeking the following reliefs:
"PRAYER WHERFORE, this Hon'ble court may be please to pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, his agents, followers, friends, henchmen and others.
a. Direct the defendant to demolish the 3rd floor which is under construction without any permission and against to For LOTUS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION the guidelines of anekal planning authority.
b. For granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workers, successors, family members, from put up any further construction in and over the suit schedule property.
c. Pass any such orders which may this hon'ble court be deems to fit in the circumstances of the cases and award cost of the suit, in the interest of justice equity and fair play.
d. Award the costs of the suit and e. Pass such other relief or reliefs as this Honorable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the site bearing No.1, vide E-katha No.150200101900520736, carved out of Sy.No.20 and 21/2 measuring East to West 9.62 sq.Meter, total measuring 144.30 Sq.meter, and North to South 15 Sq.meter, (30 X 50 Sqft) situated at Telagarahalli village, comes under the Vanakanahalli Grama panchayath, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District., and bounded on :
East by: site No.2, West by: Road, North by : Road, South by: 3m Wide pathway."
The relief sought is for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, the present petitioner to restrain him from further construction or to demolish the existing construction. The pleading insofar as the prayer that was sought is as follows.
"6. The plaintiff submit that, the defendant is the absolute owner of the site the No.1, bearing site vide E- katha No.150200101900520736, carved out of Sy.No.20 and 21/2 measuring East to West 9.62 sq. Meter, total measuring 144.30 Sq.meter, and North to South 15 Sq.meter, (30 X 50 Sqft) situated at Telagarahalli village, comes under the Vanakanahalli Grama panchayath, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. Which is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR more fully described hereunder and hereinafter called as suit schedule property.
7. The plaintiff submit that, the defendant got the E-katha on 26-10-2023 in respect of the suit schedule property, subsequently he obtained commencement certificate by the Anekal Planning authority dated 04-01- 2024, subject to certain conditions and also directed the defendant to obtain the construction license by the Vanakanahalli grama panchayath, the said Panchayath issued the license by imposing certain conditions dated:09-01-2024. The plaintiff is herewith produced the the said documents for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
8. The plaintiff submit that, subsequently, the defendant started construction in and over the suit schedule property, the defendant completed structure of G+2 floors and started put up 3rd floor, by deviating or violating guideline or conditions imposed by of Anekal planning authority and Vanakanahalli Grama Panchayath. As soon as observed by the plaintiff association questioned the defendant about the illegal construction of 3rd floor, and also filed the complaint to the PDO of Vanakanahalli Gramapanchayath dated 30- 04-2024, and also given complaint to the Executive officer Anekal dated:30-05-2024. The plaintiff is herewith produced the said documents for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
9. The plaintiff submit that, on the compliant of the plaintiff association dated: 30-05-2024 the Vanakanahalli grama panchayath wrote a letter dated 31-05-2024, to the member secretary of Anekal Planning authority to take appropriate action against the defendant, about his illegal construction. The plaintiff association also given a representation to the Anekal Planning authority about the illegal construction of defendant on 01-06-2024. The office of the Taluk panchayath also wrote a letter to the anekal Planning -6- NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR authority dated: 07-06-2024, stated that, the defendant by violating the conditions imposed by the Anekal Planning authority and the concerned panchayath about the illegal construction. And also urged to take appropriate action against the said illegal construction. Subsequently, the PDO of Vanakanahalli grama panchayath also lodged the police complaint dated: 10- 06-2024, Even though the defendant not stopped his illegal construction and he is continuing in his illegal construction. The plaintiff is herewith produced the said letters for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
10. The plaintiff submit that, that on 16-07- 2024, the Anekal planning authority vide it's letter No. APA/19/2024-25, wrote a letter to the PDO Vanakanahalli Grama Panchayath to take action against the defendant and his illegal construction since the issue comes under the jurisdiction of said Panchayath. Subsequently the said panchayath given detailed report to the Taluk Panchayath and to take stop the illegal construction, having received the report from the Vanakanahalli panchayath the Executive officer issued a notice to the defendant dated: 13-09- 2024 and directed him to stop the illegal construction and also given STAY order to stop the illegal construction, having received the said notice and stay order construction, having received the said notice and stay order the defendant stopped the illegal construction for time being, subsequently the plaintiff association also issued Thilivalike pathra to the defendant on 23- 09-2024 about his illegal construction, subsequently, the defendant illegally started construction work in the month of February 2025, after noticing the said illegal act once again the Gramapanchayath of Vanakanahalli issued notice dated:25-02-2025 to stop the illegal construction to the defendant. The plaintiff is herewith -7- NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR produced the copies of the said letters for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
11. The plaintiff submit that, the plaintiff that on 19-02-2025 lodged the complaint to the Executive officer and on 24-02-2025 lodged the complaint to the Vanakanahalli panchayath and also lodged the police complaint to the circle Inspector of police on 22-02-2025, to stop the illegal construction of defendant, further the panchayath issued letter to the BESCOM to disconnect the connection given to the suit schedule property on 27-02-2025. The plaintiff is herewith produced the above stated letters for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
12. The plaintiff submit that, subsequently that on 27-02-2025 the office of the Taluk panchayath issued notice to the PDO to take action against the defendant, of his illegal construction, in spite of issuance of notices/letters by the above authorities, the defendant illegally started put up construction. The plaintiff is herewith produced the photographs for kind perusal of this Honorable court.
13. Hence, that on 05-03-2025 the plaintiff association went and requested the defendant to stop the illegal construction which is carrying out against to the guidelines imposed by the Anekal Planning authority and jurisdictional Panchayath.
14. The plaintiff submits that, in spite of the request made by the plaintiff association and above stated authorities the defendant without caring anything continuing his illegal construction the defendant canvassed that, he will carry out construction without any permission illegally, in and over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police stated about illegal construction of the defendant, the the said -8- NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR police advised the plaintiff to approach this hon'ble court since the matter is civil in nature.
15. The defendant is very powerful person, having muscle and money power and very influenced person and also not law abiding citizen. The plaintiff will not resist the defendant without any orders of this hon'ble court. Hence this present suit.
16. The cause of action for the suit arose on 30-04-2024 when the plaintiff given complaint to the PDO of Vanakanahalli Grama Panchayathi, and on 30-05-2024 when the plaintiff given complaint to the Executive officer Anekal, on 01-06-2024 when the plaintiff given representation before Anekal Planning authority, on 13-09-2024 when the Executive officer issued notice to the defendant, on 25-02-2025 when the Grama panchayath issued notice to the defendant, on 19- 02-2025 when the plaintiff given complaint to the Executive officer Anekal, on 24-02-2025 when the plaintiff given complaint to Vanakanahalli grama Panchayath, and on 05-03-2025 when the plaintiff association went and requested the defendant to stop the illegal construction which is carrying out against to the guidelines imposed by the Anekal Planning authority and jurisdictional Panchayath and on all subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court."
(Emphasis added) The Association alleges that the petitioner, the def endant herein, was constructing a house contrary to law. According to the Association, what is permitted in law was ground floor plus 2 floors only, and what the defendant was constructing was -9- NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR ground floor plus 3 floors or 4 floors as the case would be, but beyond the permissible limit. The injunction so sought was declined to be granted by the trial Court on the score that the Association had no locus to seek injunction of construction of a property in its precincts. This was challenged before the first appellate Court by the Association. The first appellate Court upturns the said order and grants an injunction, directing construction only within the permissible limit and not beyond the limit. It is this order that has driven the petitioner - defendant, who is allegedly constructing the building blatantly and contrary to the settled norms or violating the law as the case would be.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner - defendant would vehemently contend that the respondent - plaintiff has no locus to file a suit for injunction and having no locus, the Civil Court has appropriately rejected the ground of injunction that was sought for at the hands of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court has grossly erred in ignoring the fact of locus and considering only the illegality in the construction, has granted an injunction. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR judgment of the division bench of this Court in the case of SYNDICATE BANK VS. M/S.MANYATHA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION IN W.A.No.2872/2013 and connected matters, disposed on 26.02.2021 to buttress his submission that in a suit for injunction, the suit for injunction cannot be maintained by the Residents' Welfare Association.
5. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1
- Association would submit that the Association cannot be said to be lacking locus to seek an injunction to stop the petitioner from undertaking further construction and the Residents' Welfare Association, which takes care of the grievances and welfare of the members of the Association would undoubtedly have a right to question the illegalities of the residents, which come within the Association. The Association is not seeking anything that comes within the statutory purview of the Planning Authority. They sought injunction on the score that they are in-charge of the welfare of the members of the Association, whose welfare is jeopardised by the petitioner in putting up a construction, which is on the face of it contrary to law.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The civil Court declines to grant injunction in favour of the Association, which had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner - defendant from constructing a building that was contrary to law in O.S.No.201/2025. The concerned civil Court had observed as follows:
"2. Brief facts of the averments of the affidavit annexed to the present application are set out hereunder;
"Suit schedule site belongs to defendant and same is carved out in Sy.No.20 & 21/2 of Telagarahalli village, Vanakanahalli Grama Panchayath, Anekal Taluk. Apart from defendant, others also purchased residential sites in the said place and said layout is named as Lotus Layout and all the residents of said layout including defendant formed Lotus Residency Welfare Association and registered the same before the District Registrar of Societies and to the said society the said Krishna.C is the Secretary.
2. It is further case of the plaintiff that the Anekal Planning Authority accorded permission and issues commencement certificate to the defendant for construction of G+2 floors residential building in the suit schedule property. But, the defendant trying to construct G+3 floors building in the suit schedule
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR property by deviating the permission accorded by Anekal Planning Authority. Therefore, the Secretary of plaintiff, complained the same to the PDO of concerned Gram Panchayath, Executive Officer of Anekal Taluk and Anekal Planning Authority to take necessary action against the defendant and also to take necessary Steps to demolish the 3rd floor construction in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the said authorities instructed to the defendant not to put up further construction of 3rd floor and also instructed to demolish the partial construction of 3rd floor in the suit property. But, the defendant continued the construction activity of 3rd floor without valid permission. Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction along with present application for the aforesaid relief.
3. The present suit resisted by the defendant by filing written statement along with memo praying to adopt the written statement as objection to present application. Accordingly, written statement treated as objection to the present application.
4. Brief facts of the averments of written statement are set out hereunder;
The defendant admitted his ownership in respect of suit property and he further admitted with regard to construction of building in the suit schedule property. But, he denied the other averments of plaint as false. He further contends that after obtaining necessary commencement certificate from Anekal Planning Authority he has already constructed G+2 and Terrace in the suit schedule property. Therefore, he has not deviated the approval of planning authority. He further contends that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit, as if he has deviated any approval plan, then the PDO or Anekal Planning Authority has to take action against him and he further contends that business of the plaintiff is only to provide basic amenities to the residents
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR of said layout. He further contends that, he has already completed construction work and house-warming ceremony also taken place and only fixation of window doors are pending. In the circumstance, present application of the plaintiff becomes infructuous. Therefore, the present suit as well as present application are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the present application.
5. Having heard both side and on perusal of material available on record, the following points arise for consideration;
1. Whether the representative of plaintiff has made out prima-facie case in favour of plaintiff?
2 Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff?
3 Whether the irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if present application is disallowed?
4. What order?
6. On appreciation of material available on record, the above points are answered as under;
POINT No.1 :- In the affirmative, POINT No.2 & 3 :- In the negative, POINT No.4 :- As per final order, REASONS
7. Point No.1: Admitted facts are that the defendant is the owner in possession of suit property and suit property is situated within the Lotus Layout situated at Telagarahalli Village, Panchayath, Anekal Taluk. representative of the plaintiff is the Secretary of Lotus
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR Residence Welfare Association. Further it is admitted fact is that the defendant constructed G+2 floors and said to be constructing 3rd floor in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is constructing 3rd floor illegally in the suit property.
On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to question the construction of building in the suit property, as his business only to provide basic amenities to the residents of said layout as per the By-Law.
On perusal of the By-Law of said Association, it does not goes to show that plaintiff has any authority to question the illegal/unauthorized structures in the said layout. Nonetheless, whether plaintiff has any locus-standi to question the defendant's illegal construction in the suit property or not, could be decided after trial.
Further, it is to be noted here that when the defendant justified the construction in the suit property is in accordance with permission accorded by Anekal Planning Authority, then plaintiff needs to be proved that the defendant constructed 3rd floor illegally. Thus, plaintiff has made out prima-facie case for trial.
In addition to the above, either the plaintiff or defendant not produced the approval plan issued by the concerned authority. In the circumstance, at this stage by relying the commencement certificate issued by the Anekal Planning Authority, it cannot be said that the defendant has put up 3rd floor by deviating the approval plan. Therefore, the said fact can be decided only after full-pledged trial. Thus, this court of the view that the plaintiff has made out prima-facie case for trial. In the result, Point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
Further, if the defendant has constructed 3rd floor illegally without obtaining permission from concerned authority, then the concerned authority
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR could be proceeded to demolish the said illegal structure of 3rd floor in accordance with law. In the circumstance, it can not be said that the balance of convenience. lies in favour of plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused the plaintiff if present application is disallowed. Therefore, point No.2 & 3 answered in the negative.
8. Point No.2 & 3- To avoid repetition of facts, these two points are taken up together for consideration; The core contention of the defendant is that he already completed construction of building in the suit schedule property and performed house-warming ceremony, therefore the present application becomes infructuous. In support of said contention, he produced photographs. On perusal of the same, prima-facie go to show that the defendant completed structure of building and only fixation of window doors are pending and further it appears. that house-warming ceremony also taken place. In the circumstance, as rightly argued by the learned defendant's counsel the present application becomes infructuous.
9. Point No.4: The plaintiff has made out prima- facie case for trial. But, he failed to made a case that the balance of convenience lies in his favour and irreparable loss would be caused to him, if present application is disallowed. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief of temporary injunction as sought. Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER IA No-I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w section 151 of CPC is hereby dismissed."
(Emphasis added)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR This is challenged before the first appellate Court by the Association. The first appellate Court frames the following points that arose for its consideration:
"10. Now the points arise for consideration are;
POINTS
1. Does trial court is right in holding that plaintiff having prima facie case?
2. Does trial court is right in holding that plaintiff will not suffer inconvenience ?
3. Does trial court is right in holding that plaintiff will suffer injury, if injunction is rejected ?
4. Does orders of trial court requires interference of this Court?
5. What Order?
11. By considering arguments submitted by learned Counsels and materials placed before the court and observation of trial court in orders passed on IA.No.I, above points are answered as below;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Negative, Point No.3: In the Negative, Point No.4: In the Affirmative, Point No.5: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. POINT No.1:- It is admitted that defendant is the owner of suit schedule property and he is constructing the building only allegation is, defendant constructing construction in violation of sanctioned plan. Sanctioned plan given to defendant is placed before the court, it was given for ground floor, first floor, second floor. In the third floor, defendant may construct one room by leaving terrace place. According to plaintiff, defendant constructed G+3 floor without leaving terrace place. Letter written to PDO of Vanakanahalli Gram Panchayath on 30.04.2024, clearly shows that defendant in violation of sanctioned plan, constructed four floors building. Sanctioned plan approved to the plaintiff by concerned authorities, communication between plaintiff and authorities and letter referred above and notice dated 25.02.2025 issued by secretary to the defendant clearly shows that defendant in violation of sanctioned plan constructed building and constructed 4 floors. According to defendant, he never constructed building in violation of sanctioned plan to show that defendant not produced any documents. Defendant before this court produced some photographs to show that he had not constructed 4 floors and his construction is according to approved plan. Second photographs which was taken from back side of defendant house discloses that plaintiff constructed 4 floors building in his property and entire third floor was constructed without leaving terrace place as stated in approved sketch. Photographs produced by the defendant himself shows that he constructed building against to approved plan. Defendant produced photos of different houses to show that they also constructed 4 floors in the Lotus layout, plaintiff not filed suit against them, only with ulterior motive, suit filed by the plaintiff to defraud him. Photographs produced by the plaintiff discloses that other persons constructed room in the 3rd floor and left sufficient terrace space. None of the land lord constructed 4 floors as constructed by the plaintiff, only they constructed one room and left terrace place.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR At this stage, materials placed by this court clearly shows that defendant construction is in violation of approved plan. According to defendant, he constructed as per approved plan, but nothing placed by the defendant to show that he constructed according to approved plan. At this stage, as already held by the learned trial court plaintiff is having case for trial, by observing this, trial court rightly appreciated materials and held that plaintiff is having prima facia case. hence, this Point answered in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2 & 3: These points involves common question of facts, hence, taken together for discussion. Trial court held that plaintiff is having no authority to question the acts of illegal construction by the defendant or any other resident. Plaintiff submitted that being Association, they can challenge the irregularities or illegal construction for other purpose than residential purpose. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for defendant relied on Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.5627/2015 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that being Association, Association can question the illegal construction, which is against to the purpose for which layout was formed. Observation of trial court i.e., plaintiff is not having authority to challenge the illegal construction is not proper. Series of letters and complaint lodged by the plaintiff discloses that complaint was given to the Anekal Planning Authority, PDO Taluk Panchayath. On the basis of complaint, notice was given to the defendant to stop construction, even though notice was issued, defendant not stopped construction, he continued construction, this shows the arrogance of defendant. According to defendant, he completed construction and house warming ceremony was also done. If so, no inconvenience or injury will caused to the defendant, even if he restrained from further
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR construction. If by believing the say of defendant i.e., construction is completed and application becomes infructuous, if plaintiff continues with his construction with an intention to let out house, it will defeat the purpose of formation of layout and formation of Association, it will also affect the environment of the layout. If wrong door is permitted to goes on with his wrong, other residence will also start to do wrongs and disobey the request of Association and in that case, formation of Association itself will be defeated. In layout, it is necessary for all residents to maintain harmony and to act for the interest of all residents. If injunction is allowed, no inconvenience or injury will caused to the defendant, as he already completed construction, as said by him. If injunction is not granted, if defendant goes on constructing further construction, it will defeat the purpose of formation of Association, in that case, very purpose of Association will be defeated. It is not proper on the part of trial court to hold that defendant will suffer more inconvenience and injury, than plaintiff. At this stage, it is clear that plaintiff is having balance of convenience and it will suffer injury, accordingly, these Points answered in the Negative.
14. Point No.4:- As said above, observation of trial court with respect to inconvenience and injury is not according to natural justice and material facts, hence, orders of trial court requires interference, accordingly, this Point answered in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.5:- For the reasons assigned to above points resulted in following;
ORDERS The Appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff, under Order XLIII Rule 1 R/w Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR The order passed on I.A.No.l by learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Anekal in O.S.No.201/2025 on 24.03.2024, is set- aside.
Consequentially, IA.No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec.151 of CPC is allowed."
(Emphasis added) The first appellate Court observes that the Association had all the right to question the act of illegality of a resident, who was wanting to construct the building beyond the approved plan or contrary to the building bylaws. It also notices the fact that the Anekal Planning Authority had issued a notice of such illegal construction against the present petitioner, who was undertaking such construction. This order of the first appellate Court, which has driven the said defendant before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate what was contended before the civil Court with regard to the locus of the respondent - Association. I decline to accept the same as the suit is still pending adjudication. What has driven him to this Court is an order that stops further construction of an illegal building of the petitioner - defendant. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference, if it is now interfered with and the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28639 WP No. 18575 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner - defendant is permitted to continue the construction, it would be putting a premium on the illegality that the petitioner is now alleged of constructing ground floor plus 3 floors, which is on the face of it contrary to law.
9. Since the suit is pending, I refrain from making any further observation least the construction of the petitioner, as he would be prejudiced before the concerned Court of his defense.
10. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68