The Principal Government Flying ... vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 14 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Principal Government Flying ... vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 14 March, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

mas THE mm mum" cur KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
SATED THIS THE 14"?" DAY OF MARCH, 2611

BEFORE

THE HOPFBLE MR. JUSTICE ASE-IOK B. H1NcH1:;;ia;R1 .'VV"~.. ._j  

R.F.A.No.399/2008 (IN3)
BETWEEN:  

THE PRINCIPAL  _ 
GOVERNMENT FLYING TRAINING sc§~_+0QL _ _    '
JAKKUR, BANGALORE  * '.;-.A"P?ELL:.{3\NT
(BY SR: ZAHfi:E'R_ A&~f't~?IE__1:§; A_..r.ﬁ_]'A..%) V' V'

AND:

SCIENCES Hc)usE'aH1Lm";Ne%'  M

CO--OPERATI\k5.E SOCIETY" ~ '

GKVK,HEBBAL _'p}.=,"«=

BANGALORE 560<{_',_)2r_i_ " V  - _   RESPONDENT

" {BY 521- .;§;H.S§)MAsHEKARA, ADv.,) *T;§§I':3.VR--E_c;LJLA'F<HRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTICDN 96 OF. "ME CvPC...A(§fﬁ.-ZVNST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED If"_2v5.1$.2'{}{3? PASSEDKN 0.s.:\:0.564{::/2003 GM THE FELE OF THE {>4 ADDL.'-~CITY'€IV\£VEL Am SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALQRE CITY, %.f__f).E4CE§EE1NCi THE SUIT FGR PERMANENT INJLENCTION. }I"T:¥+:s.«--._ QEGULAR FIRST APPEAL comma ms FOR Lg;_";€~+§M:3$;:<:;,?'rza§ THIS 53%', THE CQLERE" mgzvaaga THE ' '.:¢Q:;:«;0ag~;§:rx:<3:

ix") QQDQHENT This appeai is directed against the judgment and_.vééc.f_e@Vv, dated 2519.200? passed by the Court 91' the IX ;iqc:§_i{i:§hé'if}:.f:[i:;,<_.f. Civil and Sessions Eudge, Bang_:a_iQ'ra mi {).S.i\iO.S640/2000.

2. The facts of the Game in' .are.V.ti':-at' is a House Building Co-opes*a~i:_iye ciia'i§*i'is"'VVt:E1at the Gevernment acquired 34 at various survey numbers of§.3ai~ii<'§:r \':i;?i%§h_a{;i§§iVj'i;iobii, Bangaiore North Taiuk. The normed the layout and aiiotted theVvi'sii::e-:~':A:':;;i.'@.ififi'e of the University of Amricuitural of the respondent society. It ciairfis"'«thatéhéiAs--ifi'it'~:-gchedule progaerties are part and §)§_?1«'fC~'E':i_A ai.:hc:j'::'ivr.e,ér.i«'iands, out cf which the iayout: is f0rff:€d.,.V. i'

3. AiE,;§g*:.r.;:§ {hat Ehe appeiiant has started interfering in i""ti9€é"-réss;3ci;'3deri%'é peacefui possessisn and enjoyment 01' the suit a"'.'.""4 S:*%i'e§i:i.i§=,:;s=-éﬁgertiesf the i'"eS;)€}i"id€F'it ﬂag Essueé the rictice, aiated ta the aggeiiant. "féxereafter, the §'"€Sg}Oﬁﬁ€i""i§ éoégeé 5 i,,i,,.-: '~§<:zm'piaEnt5 dated 2§.Z?,2QGG zazith the jurigééctéanai gsaéicei §;'%2;%e§;.

"\..I.J Ventéfating the grievance that the appeifarws ént:erferenCe___was; continued, the resprgmdent fifed the suit seeking the perpetuaf injzmctian. The appeifant did not fiie statement. _

4. Baseé on the pfeadingsjn thé'pi a--é_nt, Ma? framed the foifowing isgues:

:

53}      s:L%§;'~i 

 03053: 5335);»   ..

3} e~§a:t:3>«Ei52:»<i;v33 ego:-,{3";:':'2'?':._ 3,) '

-366355

5. Tina V§~é'spg§::d:e7r:*§'$_»' Vfgecretary, Sri Uiviahesh was e:;:'5a:'n2i.n;eo~':j.é£s A.ma'Af'3éin'g""the documents at Exhibits P1 to P9, The a§pc§i_:amf':»=5g{Va§"'::;§'n'*;;ant with c:r<>$S~examining PW1. It did mat :i '-envter tﬁ'=e__"'wEtne§ é__E0:-cg N0 aocuments are marked for the _ g;.;:=4g;'é£lant:~--defe'h'dant. No arguments came :9 be addressed or': '._"fgT:'ra4Ai"f1a§:£**_;:k§:¥t"§*':"g:5 aggeéiarét.

6. Gm considering the pieadéngsf oral and documeqtary evidence placed on ﬁts record, the Triai Court answe4r<ad"'«...€_?he issues érz favour of the respctmdent ana decreed the sL_;--i--§§., i"

if. I-aggrieved by the aforesaid jud.g.me_nt ahi"':i§:;ré€;*,.V"tht3.V4 appeai is preferred.

8. Sri Zaheer Ahmed, thé AG}i_T\'- a thresheld bar to the very ma%'h'$a;ina_.b'i'§'i'ty'VL-Iéjf'ff;-5'.suif;'"Hé subméts that no notéce te the a;3peEiant'a.V~:asV_Vi"§Vsfi:;§'ef,=:Vci with the requirements of that the appeilant had the suit scheduie prepertyﬁ Tijé' to 2882, in which year the a;3;;2 é&¥.|éra't ﬁompotjnd wali. when the compound constructed, the respondent a:g§f$r0&ch~é.§:fi°'t§3.:é (EM! {:A2j{§i3:'*c;--"'Thus, there was no cause of action fc>r th ¢ so contends Sri Zaheer Ahmed.

9Q.___VSré_,~Z'$'%%:.--&.~iér Ahmed submits that if faint gurvey Es

--«.'T'.t§':,e:;'rz§;i'aL~M:te::'i, t"i1_e__ *c:antr0versy ceuld be iaéd at rest. A --;1E}«,. _?i'e;* Carma, Sr; §<.H&S3ma3hei<ara, the ieamed csunse! ?zr31::=..E_§f2€5 reﬁganééﬁt gzzbmitg that _a gain: Survey wag éndeeé 5 Conducted, though the eopetiaht, for the reasons best known to itseif, did not take part in the joint survey. He submits that EXKPS is the joint survey report. He submits that a notice was indeed sent to the appeiiarit on 4.37.2008, which did not e"v.o§<e any response from the appeilaht. He further submits.'_thét:":th'e-.V appeIiarii:'s side did not even address the arguments."-«ﬁt

11. I have browsed through the L__.G.R_s. "7i'heV'o?rs:£eVr"'s,heetv_V ii"

reveais that it is ail the story of missed c;foport{:'hEtieé eppeiiant. Despite the granting 'of_T's.evere'i Voppot'ii*toh.ijt'i"es.,the = L' appeitant did not fiie the written ste_teri'2eht--;i.Ldidh'notadoduce the evidence, did"'hVotri.:oirQdVtii;e tiie"'doeLi"'a'ti'eiVhts, did not argue the Case. No expvleohlatioritirhertsoeiferjjiis forthcoming from the aepeai memorandorh asito 'why', aﬁignetlant did not take part in the suit' Pfoeeiétiifities. **** it "

it'The..V_'ieo%:v:e'{':tion that there has been no compliance the of Section 80 of CPC is being raised for the time. trite position in iaw that, if it is a pure question ten he faiﬁﬁﬁ even at the eopeiiate stage: But, the ':o%e:;§§e;i_den: has issued the notice, deted esazeoe £:EX.§:'?). This rz»et§t:e hes not eéieited em; reoiy from the eeeeiierit. ihet seeh e imtice is net in fuii compiiance of the requirement of Sectiqn 80 is not raised by the appeiianfs side either" in the..jii.ifi<ttéi3 statement GI' by way of an agaplication fer the piaint or araiiy aise. The appeiiant has net.even"";:in'f:"

to the WV: in the course of cross~e><a%i1iné;i_'_t§ci'E1 iii. _t"niS :fVVe»:ja.rV{a".7.:

The terms ef notice shouid not Vi3i--£T;':v4"'Sv_(iE'LJtAi'i'i.,i'S€(IiiA"'i:}'@fid:};ﬁtiC = L' manner. The provisions contained in--.$ié'ciic'ra_,L'8O (3}--.r;}f C.iP.C. are to be seen in this regard:

"{3} N0 suit4institut§a'd.VL3o:;?é'tiiment or against a pubiié; rc~ﬁ,s'i:iect4Vofv'any"a'ct purporting to be done '=.ifii's' iofficiai capacity shaii of any ermr or dafect the ?iOii!C:iE3_,:i;€'fﬁi3'l"ifé(3"~._tO in sub~se<:tit>n (1), if in such noticegwé' _ _ (aj "the narfi<§,_V_Vv(:!'ésci*i;3tion and the residence of the . .°-piaii°2tEff?--.had'i' been éiiigjiiien as to erzabie the appropriate pubiic: officer to identify the person "s:e:ni-iViigV"ti9i"e;i--_nt;§ifiéé and such netice has been deiivered or "'«!.eft,.__i'a"i:.ViA.ii:l"ie office of tha appropriate authority specifi"e3d_A'1in si;i:x~$ec:tion (1), and " the cause 0%' actian and the reiief claimed by the ﬁiaintiff had been SEJbSiiaE'i'E§8§§'y' indi<:ateéi]""

ﬁﬁéil 7

13. Considering an the aspeets of the matter, this Court finds it hard in either te set aside the judgment and decree under apnea! er remand the matter for fresh enquiry. In these proceedings atso, no aepiication inveking Order XL}; ¥1u3e.T*2;-? is fiied for producing any decurnents to enabte this 'a~ V. View éifferent that the View taken by the Triat Court.

14.. In the resuit, this appeat is_,di$.mis::eti';~~.:'_i%.nwet.<er,._ certain ebservations are required to be "mazier.and._c'ia_r'ifi<iefi--Qri'£i.i are required to be issued. It is op"e'n«.__to the epVpe§§,_anvt.'t»e_fi%e a -. "

duiy constituteé suit for dectaratiozy__nie:nei»a_tor§r"mju'nctVift)n, etc. If ene such suit i.s~fiiVei<i,.'t.heTr'iei"€.ourt shaii aejudicate the same without being inﬂtueinced hy~VA'th'e""'.reesons given by the Triai Court for_Vpassir:'g_§ the.judgrneent anti decree in O.S.No.5640/2000 and the-._rea::;>xhs this Court for cnnfirrning the same. Need3essV"i't_<:+Ae"e:§'e.r_ve:;"'EVhat it is aiso open to the respendent to $ueh"*«de.fen'e5es in the suit, if any, te be fiied by the _ ef;i;€e!ti:a:A2tr,r__aS ere availabie to it in taw.

15. Subject to the reserving of these liberties and making of the ebservauons, ﬁﬁs app@a§%5 cﬁsnﬁssed. Ne order 55 E9 costs.

\/GR/MD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court