Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Vasanthakumar vs Sri Kamalesh Kumar M Sanghvi on 31 March, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
C.R.P.No.137/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.137/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI K.N.VASANTHAKUMAR
S/O LATE K NARAYAN SA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.10, DARJIPET
R.T.STREET CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 053 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI KAMALESH KUMAR M SANGHVI
PROP. M/S.JAY.K.SANGHVI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.59, GROUND FLOOR
KABADI BUILDING
CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET
BANGALORE - 560 053 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2019
PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU ON IA NO.XIII IN SC
NO.2073/2016.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
C.R.P.No.137/2020
2
ORDER
Heard.
2. Aggrieved by the reception of a document by
the trial Court, the plaintiff in S.C.No.2073/2016 has
preferred this petition.
3. The petitioner filed S.C.No.2073/2016 against
the respondent before IX Additional Small Causes Judge
and XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru for ejectment.
4. The petitioner claimed that the respondent is
the tenant of the suit property under him and he has
terminated the tenancy by issuing notice. He further
claimed that despite that, the respondent has not
delivered the possession of the property.
5. The respondent admitted the tenancy and
claimed that the petitioner has received Rs.10,00,000/- as
security deposit and in case of ejectment the petitioner is
liable to refund the same. He claimed that he is permanent
tenant and the tenancy was witnessed by lease deed dated
C.R.P.No.137/2020
25.08.2005 and the terms of the lease were incorporated
in the document.
6. During the course of evidence, the respondent
alleged that the original lease deed was with the father of
the petitioner and on his death, it is in the possession of
the petitioner. The respondent claimed that he has only
the xerox copies of the lease deed dated 25.08.2005. The
petitioner disputed the genuineness of the said document.
7. During the course of evidence, the respondent
filed I.A.No.XIII to receive the original lease deed dated
25.08.2005 in evidence. The petitioner opposed the same.
8. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed
the application permitting the respondent to mark the
xerox copy subject to proof of the genuineness of the
document at the appropriate stage.
9. The respondent has to prove the secondary
evidence in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. He has to prove that the original lease
C.R.P.No.137/2020
deed is in possession of the petitioner as contended by
him.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal
Panchal v. State of Gujarat1 in this regard has held that
any objection regarding the admissibility of the document
except the objection of admissibility of document on the
ground of non payment of the required stamp duty has to
be decided at the final stage of the case. It is further held
that such document shall be marked in evidence subject to
such objections and the said objection shall be decided at
the final hearing of the suit. This matter is fully covered by
the said judgment.
11. In permitting the respondent by the impugned
order to mark the said document the trial Court has not
committed any jurisdictional error. Therefore revision
petition is dismissed.
The original proceeding is of the year 2016.
Therefore the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as
(2001) 3 SCC 1
C.R.P.No.137/2020
expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The parties shall cooperate for disposal of the
matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
