BBMP notice requirements cannot bar a suit against the BDA when BBMP is not a party.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 3 February 2018 and alleged interference by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). He sought a permanent injunction against the BDA and its officials.

The defendants did not file a written statement or lead evidence.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, reasoning that it was not maintainable against the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, although the suit was against the BDA.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Whether the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit for the reason stated in its judgment.

Whether the Trial Court’s judgment and decree required appellate interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Trial Court relied on Section 134 of the BBMP Act, but the High Court held that this reasoning did not apply because the suit was against the BDA, not the BBMP, and no relief was sought against the BBMP.

The judgment cites no precedent or specific statutory provision governing remand; it states that remand was appropriate because the Trial Court had not decided the suit on its merits.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had proceeded on an erroneous premise: the plaintiff had sued the BDA for an injunction, but the dismissal rested on the supposed non-maintainability of a suit against the BBMP.

Since the Trial Court had not considered the claim on its merits, the High Court concluded that the suit should be reconsidered after appreciation of the evidence to be adduced by both parties, rather than determined in the appeal on the existing record.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 8 February 2023, and remanded the suit to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, leaving all contentions open.

The Trial Court was directed to issue notice to the defendants, and the plaintiff was directed to appear before it on 26 October 2026 without awaiting notice.