Chief Commissioner Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), (Statutory Body Constituted Under The GBA Act, 2024) N R Square, Bengaluru-560002 vs M/S. Genesis IT Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

K.S. Hemalekha, J

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendant-Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), calling in question the legality and correctness of the ex parte ad interim temporary injunction order dated 07.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.25013/2026 on the file of the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court restrained the appellant-defendant from demolishing or interfering with the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing.

The plaintiff, claiming to be the absolute owner in possession of residential Apartment No.303, Third Floor, Devaraprasad Brigade Palace, on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 27.06.2025, instituted a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex parte temporary injunction. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the documents produced and on apprehending demolition proceeded to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing or interfering with the suit schedule property.

The appellant-defendant, being a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (for short, "GBG Act"), contended that upon noticing unauthorized construction in the schedule property, an inspection was conducted and a mahazar was drawn on 23.12.2025, wherein it was found that an extent of about 67.62 square meters of unauthorized construction had been put up on the terrace floor. Pursuant thereto, a statutory notice and demolition order dated 30.12.2025 came to be issued, calling upon the respondent-plaintiff to demolish the unauthorized structure. According to the appellant, despite service of notice and affording an opportunity, the respondent-plaintiff neither replied nor complied with the statutory directions. Instead, the respondent-plaintiff instituted the present suit and obtained a ex parte order of injunction from the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the impugned ex parte interim order passed by the Trial Court is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the appellant, being a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the GBG Act, has initiated action strictly in accordance with law upon noticing unauthorized construction in the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the plaintiff suppressed material facts relating to the issuance of notice and demolition proceedings. Trial Court, without adverting to these material aspects and without examining the nature of the statutory action, proceeded to grant and extend the ex parte injunction.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial Court failed to consider the settled principle that when action is taken under a statute by a competent authority, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interdict such action is limited. It is contended that the respondent ought to have availed the remedies available under the statute and that the civil suit itself is not maintainable in light of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.Kavitha Jain and Another Vs. The Commissioner, BBMP and Others W.P.No.9934/2023 D.D 17.08.2023 (Kavitha Jain). It is also urged that the ex parte order, which is intended to operate only for a limited duration, has been extended from time to time without assigning reasons, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant in the discharge of its statutory duties.

This Court, on 17.04.2026, permitted the appellant's counsel to serve the appeal papers on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Trial Court. An acknowledgment evidencing service has been filed and is taken on record. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court was justified in granting and extending the ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff without adverting to the statutory action initiated by the appellant and the settled principles governing the grant of ex parte injunction?"

The contention regarding maintainability goes to the root of the matter. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a statutory authority and that the action impugned by the respondent-plaintiff arises out of proceedings initiated by such authority, culminating in the issuance of notice and demolition order in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction. However, since the issue of maintainability and the matter is seized by the Trial Court, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the same. It is, however, to be noted that the impugned order is an ex parte interim order passed on I.A.No.1 and has been extended on every date of hearing, despite the appellant having entered appearance, filed its written statement, and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the interim order.

Though serious contentions are urged by the appellant with regard to the statutory action initiated under the provisions of the GBG Act and the maintainability of the suit, this Court is of the view that these aspects require consideration by the Trial Court in the first instance, particularly when an application for vacating the interim order is already pending. At the same time, it is to be noticed that a party obtaining an ex parte order is under an obligation to prosecute the interim application diligently.

In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that interference with the ex parte interim injunction and its extension at this stage is not warranted. However, having regard to the fact that the appellant has already filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the interim order and keeping in view the mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 along with the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and dispose of the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered. This Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Miscellaneous Fist appeal is disposed of.

ii. The Trial Court is directed to take up I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC along with I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant- defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, consider the same together on merits in accordance with law.

iii. It is noticed that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 is pending consideration and the time contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, disposal of the application would expire before Court vacation, 2026. It is open for the appellant-defendant to move Trial Court for early listing of the application and if such a request is made, the Trial Court shall consider the same and take up the matter, if possible, prior to the Court vacation, 2026.

iv. In the event for any reasons, the applications could not be disposed of before vacation, 2026, the Trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the said application within three weeks from the date of resumption of the Court after vacation.

v. The ex parte ad interim order of temporary injunction shall not be construed as having been affirmed by this Court, its continuance shall be subject to the consideration and orders to be passed by the Trial Court on I.A.Nos.1 and 2.

vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.