AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Court below in O.S.9082/1996 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The appellant has filed I.As.9 and 11. In I.A.9, the prayer is not to put up any construction on the disputed property and the prayer in I.A. 11 is in respect of injunction. The Trial Court by its order dated 10.6.2004 rejected both the I.As. against which, he preferred the present appeal where he has challenged the order passed on I.A.11 and filed another MFA 6870/2004 against the order passed on I.A.9.
The 3rd respondent who is defendant No. 3, the contesting party in O.S.9082/1996 has filed a memo before this Court stating that he will not put up any construction in the suit schedule property except fencing the property to prevent possible trespass by the third parties, On recording the submissions made by the 3rd respondent, an order has been passed by the Court by restraining him from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property. However, he was permitted to fence the property.
In the light of the memo filed before this Court by undertaking that he will not put up any construction, MFA 6870/2004 came to be disposed of on 23.9.2008. In the light of the order passed in the said MFA 6870/2004, the prayer made in this appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the present appeal becomes infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.