ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PISTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT started as an earnest and serious attempt on the part of an offended person, who felt his property rights were invaded and instituted a suit for injunction as also a mandatory injunction for removing the offending part of the building in the neighbourhood and though had resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with the defendant being quite naturally aggrieved by the decree and approaching this Court for relief in an appeal and a serious debate as to the correctness or otherwise of the conduct of the plaintiffs and the defendant in the light of material placed by them before the trial Court and also about the judgment of the trial Court has ultimately turned out to be a quite withdrawal of the complaints or grievances of the parties particularly with the possibility of a proper scrutiny by the law enforcing second respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore and has ultimately resulted in a joint memo being filed by the appellant and the respondents in the appeal, which is virtually like a hotly contested test match petering out to a tame draw.

(2.) THE subject matter was violation of one party of not only the property rights of the other party, but also violating relevant laws, rules and regulations under the Municipal Act and in the process when this Court noticed such possibilities on either side during the course of the hearing of this appeal and therefore had directed the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to take necessary corrective action in accordance with law against the violators have sunk their differences patched up between themselves to fight the common-toe the Corporation and want to get out the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

(3.) THE result was that both the parties were found to be wanting in compliance with the procedural requirement in the matter of constructing their respective buildings and the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, on the mandate issued by this Court at last woke up to the reality and initiated action for setting right the violations. It appears the action on the part of the respondent No. 2 - Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has resulted in passing orders against both the parties under the provisions of the karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the rules and regulations there under calling upon the parties to demolish the offending portions of their buildings and the present position as submitted by Sri Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that as against such adverse orders suffered by the parties at the hands of the public authority now the Bangalore mahanagara Palike and earlier the Bangalore City Corporation, statutory appeals have been filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under section 443a of the Act and in such appeals, the Appellate Tribunal has passed orders staying the operation of the adverse orders passed by the bangalore Mahanagara Palike.