Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

50. Admittedly, on careful perusal of the recitals of Ex.P.5 also it is clear that the above submission of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.3 is clearly supporting. Hence, looking from any angle, this Court opines that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.

51. That apart, the Defendant No.3 has produced Ex.D.28 & Ex.D.29 to show that he is constructing his building as per the building sanction plan and license issued by the BBMP. No doubt, as of now there is no materials from the side of the Plaintiffs to show that the Defendant No.3 by violating the conditions of Ex.D.28 & Ex.D.29 has constructed his building by encroaching 10 feet common passage etc. Even if the Plaintiffs wanted any relief with regard to encroachment of common passage or deviation of building plan and license it is open for the Plaintiffs to approach the competent authority, as the competent authority is empowered to take suitable action under the BBMP Act and Karnataka Municipal Laws. Hence, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the Additional Issue No.1 & 3 are answered in the Negative.