Arani Hussain Khan S/O Mohammed Khan vs Pramod U Amberkar S/O Umapathi Rao ... on 11 June, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Arani Hussain Khan S/O Mohammed Khan vs Pramod U Amberkar S/O Umapathi Rao ... on 11 June, 2018

Bench: R Devdas

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

                        BEFORE

         THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

          R.S.A. NO.2314 OF 2006 (DEC & INJ)


BETWEEN:

ARANI HUSSAIN KHAN
S/O MOHAMMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 73 YRS
R/AT OPP MEDICAL COLLEGE,
GUNDI CHOULTRY ROAD,
MCC B BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE - 577 003.                       ...APPELLANT

     (BY SRI.HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R. FOR,
       SRI.H C SHIVARAMU, ADV.)



AND:

1.     PRAMOD U AMBERKAR
       S/O UMAPATHI RAO AMBERKAR
       AGED ABOUT 47 YRS
       INDUSTRALIST
       R/AT BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
       GUBBI TOWN - 577 003

2.     NASIR KHAN
       S/O ARANI,
       HUSSAIN KHAN,
       MAJOR

3.     FIROZ KHAN
       S/O ARANI HUSSAIN KHAN
       MAJOR
                           2




    RESPONDENT 2 AND 3
    ARE R/AT OPP MEDICAL COLLEGE
    GUNDI CHOULTRY ROAD,
    MCC B BLOCK,
    DAVANAGERE - 577 003         ... RESPONDENTS

    (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADV. FOR R1
     R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

      THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 20.12.2005         PASSED IN
R.A.NO. 39/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING    ASIDE   THE    JUDGEMENT     AND   DECREE
DT.18.12.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.286/1998 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) DAVANGERE.

    THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                  JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Sri R.Gopal submits that as per the directions given by this Court, the illegal construction that were put up by both the parties in the common passage in Schedule 'B' property has been removed by the parties themselves and portion of it was got removed by the Commissioner, Davanagere City Corporation. The report of the trial court and that of the Commissioner, Davanagere City Corporation is also perused.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent is correct.

3. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties jointly submit that the appeal does not survive for further consideration since the mandatory injunction granted has been satisfied and the illegal construction put up by both the parties have been removed.

4. Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, this appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Both the parties are directed to maintain the common passage and not to put up any construction or meddle with the common passage.

SD/-

JUDGE KLY/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court