Karnataka High Court
Sri N Venugopal Reddy vs M/S Ondot Corporate Services Pvt Ltd on 22 July, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5550 OF 2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri N. Venugopal Reddy
S/o P.Narayana Reddy
Aged about 72 years
R/at No.448, Behind Govt. School
Doddanekundi
Marathahalli Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 037
...Appellant
(By Sri Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, Senior Counsel
For Sri Rahul S Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. M/s Ondot Corporate
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
S/201, Suraj Lakshmi Appts.
56-2, 1st Main, Tata Silk Farm
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004
Reptd. By its Director
Mr. Ganesh Kamath M
2. M/s Krishil Capital
Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
No.37, M.N.Krishna Rao Road
Lalbagh West Gate
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004
2
Reptd. By its Director
Mr. Ganesh Kamath M
... Respondents
(By Sri Aravind Kamath, Senior Counsel
For K.G.Kamath, Advocate for caveator R1 & R2)
This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC
against the order dated 12.06.2019 passed on IA No.1 in
O.S.No.606/2018 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru rejecting the IA
No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the trial Court on IA No.1 in O.S.No.606/2018 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. In a suit for bare injunction with respect to road providing access to land in Sy.No.215, the plaintiff has brought this suit. The trial Court dismissed the application giving a finding that there is no prima-facie material that shows a road being in existence on the western side of Sy.No.215.
3. If according to the plaintiff, there exist a road on which he can impose right of usage, he must establish 3 right of easement. A suit for bare injunction, without seeking declaration with respect to easement right is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances pleaded. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court.
4. Now the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff will amend the plaint. If application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed before the trial Court, the trial Court can decide the said application according to law on its merits. In case application for amendment is granted by the trial Court, the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for temporary injunction once again.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMV/-