FOOTPRINTS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION vs M.S. SUZAN RAHAMAN

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1765 OF 2025 (CPC)


BETWEEN:

1. FOOTPRINTS APARTMENT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FOOTPRINTS
7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
HAL II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560008
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT
MR. KAMAL SAGAR
RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.303,
FOOTPRINTS, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
HAL II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560008.
…APPELLANT











Digitally

signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR G., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.
MS. SUZAN RAHAMAN
W/O LATE MATHIN RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.203,
FOOTPRINTS, 7TH CROSS,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025




7TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560008.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHWIN K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
30.11.2024 IN O.S.NO.26042/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) AND REJECT I.A
NO.VII (ANNEXURE-F) FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN
O.S.NO.26042/2024 ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is
defendant No.4 in O.S.No.26042/2021, challenging the
order dated 30.11.2024 passed by IV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, insofar as it

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



relates to the application-I.A.No.VII filed by respondent
No.1, who is the plaintiff in the said suit.
3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking
before the trial court.
4. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the plaintiff
against defendant No.4/the appellant and others, seeking
the following reliefs:
"(a) To declare that the Deed of Declaration dated
th
25 April 2014, registered as Document No.80/2014-15,
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore,
is null, void and non-est as per The Karnataka Apartment
Ownership Act, 1972.
(b) To grant a mandatory injunction directing the
Defendants 1 to 3 to join with the Plaintiffs and
Defendants 5 to 20 to constitute an Apartment Owners
Association by executing a Deed of Declaration as per the
provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972.
(c) To grant a mandatory injunction directing the
Defendants Nos 2, 3 and Defendant Nos 5 to 9 to remove
all obstructions in the Plaintiff's access of the common
terrace and set-back areas of Apartment Building known

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



as Footprints and to direct the Defendants to keep the
same free from obstructions and not to put up any
construction or structures therein.
(d) To grant a Permanent Injunction to restrain the
Defendants from preventing the Plaintiff's access to the
common terrace in the Suit Schedule Property and the
set-back areas,
(e) To grant costs, and
(f) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice and equity."

5. I.A.No.VII was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to
restrain defendant No.4 from disconnecting common area
maintenance services like security power backup,
housekeeping, landscaping, elevators, health club,
electricity, water bill for common areas concerning the
application schedule properties. The said application was
contested by defendant No.4. Upon hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, the trial court has allowed I.A.No.7
filed by the plaintiff, and consequently, defendant No.4-

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



Association has been restrained from disconnecting
common area maintenance services like security power
backup, housekeeping, landscaping, elevators, health club,
electricity, water supply to the plaintiff till disposal of the
suit. Consequently, by a common order, I.A.No.VIII filed
by defendant No.4 came to be allowed permitting
defendant No.4-Association to withdraw the maintenance
amount deposited by the plaintiff in the Court. The said
order passed by the trial court on I.A.No.VIII is not in
challenge before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contends that the said order passed on I.A.No.VII is
incomplete since it restrains defendant No.4 from
disconnecting the essential services without subjecting the
plaintiff to deposit the maintenance amount to defendant
No.4-Association. Therefore, he contends that the trial
court has committed a perversity in not subjecting the
plaintiff to deposit the maintenance amount regularly as

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



and when required in accordance with the Rules and bye-
laws of the Association.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently contends that despite there being an order
passed by the trial court without subjecting the plaintiff to
deposit the maintenance amount, the plaintiff has filed an
application seeking permission to deposit the maintenance
amount before the trial court, and accordingly, she has
been regularly depositing the maintenance amount before
the trial court. In fact, the plaintiff does not have
objection with regard to defendant no.4-Association
withdrawing the amount from the Court regularly, which
has been allowed by the trial court by way of a common
order on the application-IA No.VIII filed by defendant No.4
and no appeal has been preferred against such order. It
is also submitted that the plaintiff would continue to
deposit the maintenance amount regularly before the trial
court. Hence, he contends that the order does not call for

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



interference and there is no perversity or illegality
committed by the trial court in passing the impugned
order.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant no.4 and the respondent/plaintiff.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the
impugned order calls for interference. If so, what order.
10. The trial court, by the impugned order, has allowed
I.A.No.VII filed by the plaintiff and thereby directed
defendant no.4 to not disconnect the common area
maintenance services to the plaintiff in the areas
mentioned in the impugned order. The short point for
consideration is whether the plaintiff is required to pay the
maintenance amount. Though the plaintiff has filed an
application seeking permission to deposit the maintenance
amount and volunteered to deposit the amount and the
same is being deposited regularly, is there any
requirement for modification of the order.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



inter se
11. It appears that there is an dispute between
the plaintiff and defendant No.4-Association with regard to
non est
registration of the deed of declaration to be and
the plaintiff has sought for a direction to defendant No.4 to
constitute an Apartment Owners Association by executing
a deed of declaration as per the Karnataka Apartment
Ownership Act, 1972. The said aspects will have to be
decided during the course of trial. In my opinion, the
learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended
that though an order has been passed by the trial court
allowing I.A.No.VII in favour of the plaintiff, the same
cannot be a blanket order. However, the plaintiff would
have to be subjected to deposit of the maintenance
amount regularly. Though the plaintiff has voluntarily
deposited the amount by filing an application, an order
requires to be passed, and hence, a slight modification is
required in the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the
following:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order
dated 30.11.2024 passed by IV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru on I.A.No.VII in
O.S.No.26042/2021 is modified to the extent that
defendant No.4-Association is hereby restrained from
disconnecting common area maintenance services like
security backup power, housekeeping, landscaping,
elevators, health club, electricity, water supply to the
rplaintiff till disposal of the suit subject to the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 depositing the quarterly
maintenance amount.
Further, there has been a slight error committed by
the trial court, which is a typographical error at paragraph
No.17 of the impugned order, which reads as "Therefore, I
hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the
maintenance amount deposited by the Plaintiff to the
Court" which shall be read as "Therefore, I hold that

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61235
MFA No. 1765 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010157272025



defendant No.4 is entitled to withdraw the maintenance
amount deposited by the Plaintiff to the court".

Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE

hkh.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30