Karnataka HC Rejects Neighbour’s Challenge, Allows House Construction Under Sanctioned Plan Subject To Suit Outcome

The plaintiff, S. Harish Kumar, sued for a permanent injunction alleging that defendant No. 1, Satish, was interfering with construction on the suit property.

The trial court vacated the interim injunction, principally because the plaintiff had not produced a building licence and the proposed construction might affect Satish’s easementary rights. On the plaintiff’s appeal, the appellate court reversed that order and granted temporary injunction, relying on the sanctioned plan, building licence, other materials and the balance of convenience. Satish challenged the appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, temporary injunction is assessed by reference to a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, with the parties’ conduct also relevant.

In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, an appellate court should not substitute its discretion merely because another view is possible; intervention is warranted where the trial court’s exercise of discretion is arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or contrary to settled principles.

The Court relied on Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, (2008) 11 SCC 1, in support of the principle that construction undertaken pursuant to requisite permission would ordinarily not be stopped, but may proceed subject to the outcome of the suit.

It also noted that statutory remedies under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and other applicable laws remain available if construction contravenes the sanctioned plan, licence or statutory requirements.

The appellate court had considered the sanctioned plan, building licence, photographs and other prima facie materials, as well as the parties’ competing circumstances; its decision therefore was not shown to be arbitrary or otherwise warranting interference.

The plaintiff’s construction was authorised by the competent authority, and Satish’s specific case was not that it encroached on his property, but that it might affect his easementary rights. The Court considered that concern insufficient, at the interim stage, to halt construction, particularly since statutory remedies remained available and the plaintiff could build strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, subject to the result of the suit.

The plaintiff may undertake construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, subject to the final outcome of the civil proceedings; the Court’s observations are not to influence the trial court’s decision on the merits, and all parties’ contentions remain open.