SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B vs THE COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE BEERAPPA
(GRANDSON OF LATE CHIKKAMMA)
R/AT NO.368 RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013
2. SRI V BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
(S/O LATE AKKAIAMMA)
R/AT GANGAMMA LAYOUT
GANGAMMA GUDI ,JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMA BHAT K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009
2. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
VIDYARANYAPURA (SUB-DIVISION)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE
VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
3. SRI C SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA
R/AT CHENNARAYA SWAMY NILAYA
RAMACHANDRAPURA JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
4. SRI. C. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA
NEAR B.M.T.C BUS STOP
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
5. SRI PILLE GOWDA
MAJOR
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
6. SRI. R.M SRINIVAS
MAJOR
S/O LATE G.K MUNIYAPPA
R/AT SRI DEVI NILAYA
NO.14, HANUMAN LAYOUT
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
7. SRI. R.M ASWATHNARAYANA
MAJOR
S/O LATE G.K MUNIYAPPA
NEAR ANJINEYA TEMPLE
HANUMAN LAYOUT
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
8. SRI. R.M VASUDEVAIAH
MAJOR
S/O LATE G.K MUNIYAPPA
NEAR ANJINEYA TEMPLE
HANUMAN LAYOUT
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
9. SMT KEMPAMMA
MAJOR
W/O LATE R.C GOVINDAPPA
BEHIND HANUMAN FLOUR MILL
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
10. R SUSHEELAMMA
MAJOR
W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
BEHIND HANUMAN FLOUR MILL
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
11. C LAKSHMAIAH
MAJOR
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
BEHIND HANUMAN FLOUR MILL
RAMACHANDRAPURA
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
RAMANJANI
S/O LATE KEMPANNA
BEHIND HANUMAN FLOUR MILL
RAMACHANDRAPURA VILLAGE,
JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 013
(DEFENDANT NO 12 DIED PENDING DISPOSAL OF

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
THE SUIT AND AS AGAINST HIM THE SUIT GOT
ABATED HENCE NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS
APPEAL)
12. MUNI ANJINAPPA
MAJOR
S/O CHIKKANNA,
R/AT OLD NO 705, NEW NO 859,
KUVEMPU NAGARA, 2ND STAGE,
JALAHALLI EAST POST
BENGALURU-560 064
13. CHAIRMAN
SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
PLAT FORM ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M, ADVOCATE FOR
R9, R10, R12, R6, R7, R8,
SRI. S.J. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
SRI. B. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R13,
R3, R4, R5, R11 NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2020
PASSED IN O.S.NO.8869/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal seeking
to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2020 passed
in O.S.No.8869/2012 on the file of the learned LII Addl. City
Civil Judge and consequently, to grant decree of permanent
injunction against the defendants in respect of plaint schedule
property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
by their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they jointly inherited,
acquired right, title over 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.29/1 i.e.,
the remaining extend of land after partition and accordingly,
they filed representations to the revenue authorities to carry
out necessary changes. Though the plaintiffs erected stone
pillars and fenced the suit schedule property by using barbed
wire, defendant Nos. 3 to 13 on 15.02.2010 tried to interfere
with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and started to demark the said land into house sites.
The plaintiffs therefore objected their interference and lodged a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
police complaint. In the meanwhile, though defendant Nos. 3 to
13 were not in possession of the suit schedule property, the
katha certificate was effected in the name of defendant Nos. 3
to 13. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.8869/2012
seeking mandatory injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2 to
effect khatha in the name of the plaintiffs and also permanent
injunction against defendant Nos.3 to 13 in respect of suit
schedule property.
4. After the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs
filed I.A.No.20 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
CPC seeking to amend the plaint. The Trial Court dismissed the
said I.A. vide order dated 22.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same,
the plaintiffs preferred WP.No.2723/2020. This Court vide order
dated 07.02.2020 stayed all further proceedings in
O.S.No.8869/2012. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a memo
bringing to the notice of the Trial Court the said order of stay.
However, the Trial Court rejected the memo on 10.02.2020 on
the ground that there was no stay order since the “Query on
Case number” revealed that this Court has issued notice to the
respondents on 07.02.2020 and no stay was reflected in the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
online portal. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to
pronounce the judgment on the very same day i.e.,
10.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before
this Court in the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and
the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has filed a memo dated
08.10.2026 along with the copy of the order sheet in
WP.No.2723/2020 and submits that though this Court has
granted order of stay of all further proceedings in
O.S.No.8869/2012 on 07.02.2020 itself, the Trial Court
proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 10.02.2020 on the
ground that online status of said writ petition does not reflect
the stay order. As such, since the Trial Court has passed the
impugned judgment during the subsistence of order of stay, the
matter may be remanded for fresh consideration and further
the plaintiffs may be provided with an opportunity to amend
the plaint by considering I.A.No.20.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants
opposed the said prayer, however, conceded that the impugned
judgment was passed during the subsistence of the order of
stay.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material
on record.
9. A perusal of the order sheet in WP.No.2723/2020, which
was filed challenging the order of rejection of I.A.No.20 filed by
the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8869/2012 seeking amendment of
plaint, reveals that this Court has granted an order of stay of all
further proceedings in O.S.No.8869/2012 on 07.02.2020.
However, though the plaintiffs filed a memo bringing to the
notice of the Trial Court the said order of stay, since the online
status of WP.No.2723/2020 did not disclose the stay order, the
Trial Court proceeded to pronounce the judgment in
O.S.No.8869/2012. In this view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that in the ends of justice, it would be just
and proper to remand the matter along with I.A.No.20 to the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57317
RFA No. 743 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010165932020
Trial Court for fresh consideration. In the result, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 10.02.2020 passed
in O.S.No.8869/2012 on the file of the LII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge is set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration of the matter from the stage of
consideration of I.A.No.20 filed under Order VI Rule
17 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the
plaintiff.
iv) It goes without saying that earlier order passed on
I.A.No.20 is also set aside.
v) The Trial Court is at liberty to frame additional
issues, if any.
vi) All contentions of both the parties are left open.
vii) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on
23.11.2026
, without expecting any further notice.
viii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter
as early as possible.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42