THOMAS ABRAHAM Vs. MOHAMMAD YUSUFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 15/7/2023 passed in O.S.No.1332/2023 by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The plaintiff before the Trial Court sought for an order of permanent injunction and inter alia sought for an order of temporary injunction as prayed in I.A. In support of the said application, an affidavit is sworn to that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the owners of the adjacent property and they are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's suit schedule property and even threatening the prospective tenants of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has carried out the work of interior decoration and the defendants herein are causing hindrance. If they are not restraining from such acts, it will cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The defendants have filed the objection statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Sec. 10 of CPC and there is already a suit in O.S.No.25882/2022 and the same is pending before the CCH-22 and the same is filed by the owners of the apartment represented by defendant No.2 and already there was an order of injunction against the plaintiff and to over come the said injunction order, the present suit is filed and the same is vexatious. The counsel also contend that the plaintiff got three floors and in that case, it can be around 1281 sq. feet. Whereas, the plaintiff contend that he has got an area of 1480 sq. feet. So, the plaintiff herein has encroached about 199 sq. feet. It is also the contention of the counsel for the defendants that the defendants have laid down the sewerage lines in their property but the plaintiff has created his own story to suit his case and hence, the defendants never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and area should not be more than 427 sq. feet. Hence, the suit is filed only with an intention to harass the defendants. The Trial Court having considered the plaint averments as well as the contention raised by the defendants particularly, in paragraph 12 discussed with regard to that the suit is already been filed and if an order of injunction is granted, it would be circumventing the order passed by CCH-22 and permitting the plaintiff herein to go on with his work of laying pipelines of sanitary and water and putting up of door and window hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case as to interference by the defendants herein in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, rejected the application.