Karnataka High Court
Shri. Nahim S/O Ibrahimsab ... vs Shri. Shivashankar S/O Gulappa ... on 13 July, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100198 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. NAHIM S/O IBRAHIMSAB MASKEWALE
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2ND STREET,
H.NO: 4805,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016.
2. SHRI WASIM S/O IBRAHIMSAB MASKEWALE
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: RAJENDRA'S LORDS SHOES,
RAJENDRA COMPLEX,
KHADE BAZAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally
signed by
...PETITIONERS
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2023.07.18
12:55:08 -
0700 (BY SRI. SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SHIVASHANKAR HEBBALLI
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
1. SHRI. SHIVASHANKAR S/O GULAPPA HEBBALLI
AGE: 95 YEARS,
OCC: NILL,
R/O: H.NO. 1996,
GANAPAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
2. SHRI. HARSHAVARDHAN S/O SHIVASHANKAR
HEBBALLI
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: H.NO. 1996,
GANAPAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O. SHIVASHANKAR HEBBALLI
ON MARRIAGE SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O RAJASHEKAR MULAGUND,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO. 1996,
GANAPAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
4. SHRI BALVEER
S/O SHIVASHANKAR HEBBALLI
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: NILL,
R/O: H.NO. 1996,
GANAPAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE FOR C/R1-R4, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT
THE RECORDS MAY KINDLY BE CALLED FROM THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE BELAGAVI IN RESPECT OF S.C. NO. 19/2016 AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST BELAGAVI IN SC NO. 19/2016 BY ALLOWING
THIS REVISION PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
ORDER
This civil revision is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and award
passed in SC No.19/2016 on the file of II Additional Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, dated 16.11.2022.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them
before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to case are that the
plaintiff has filed suit against defendants for ejectment of
the schedule premises. It is contended that the properties
was leased out to the father of defendant nos.1 and 2 by
name late Ibrahimsab Maskewale to run the business on
monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It is asserted that after the
death of Ibrahimsab Maskewale, defendant nos.1 and 2
continued in possession of the suit property. It is asserted
that the plaintiff requires suit schedule premises for her
personal occupation and therefore, she has issued a notice
dated 17.02.2010. But, the defendant nos.1 and 2 by sub-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
letting the petition premises to defendant no.3 are
receiving the rent and all the legal compliance have been
made and hence, he claimed possession of the suit
premises.
4. The defendants appeared and admitted that
their father was injected as a tenant on a monthly rent of
Rs.500/- and after the death of their father, they are in
possession as tenants. They disputed other contentions
by raising an issue regarding title in view of the pendency
of the other proceeding and sought for dismissal of the
suit.
5. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and
directed the defendants to deliver the suit premises within
three months from the date of the order.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree,
this revision is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for
respondent and perused the records.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for
revision petitioner is that the entire approach of the Court
below was erroneous as after return of the plaint, no fresh
evidence was recorded and the proceedings were
commenced from the stage of return. He would contend
that de novo trial ought to have been conducted and
hence, sought for dismissal of the suit by allowing the
revision.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents would support the judgment and award of the
trial Court contending that the plaint was returned as per
the request of the plaintiff, in view of the confirming
jurisdiction to the Small Cause Court, which will not come
in the way and the proceedings are required to be
commenced from the stage wherein they have stopped.
Hence, he disputed the claim and contended that other
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
legal requirements were complied with and sought for
dismissal of petition.
10. Having heard the arguments advanced and
perusing the records, there is no serious dispute of the
fact that the plaintiff has leased the suit premises to the
father of defendant nos.1 and 2 and the allegations were
subletting to defendant no.3. The defendants have not
disputed the title of the plaintiff and further there is
admission regarding the jural relationship. Further, the
receipt of the legal notice issued under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act is also admitted. The only
contention of the revision petitioner is that after return of
the plaint, the Court ought to have proceeded afresh. But,
the said contention cannot be accepted as the records
disclose that initially the suit was filed for possession in
the year 2010 and subsequently, in view of the confirming
the jurisdiction to Small Cause Court, the plaint came to
be returned in the year 2016 for presentation before the
appropriate Court and accordingly, that was done. Entire
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7224
CRP No. 100198 of 2022
proceedings were concluded before the II Additional Civil
Judge, Belguam, which has returned the petition. Under
such circumstances, it is also evident that the parties are
litigating the matter for the last 13 years and the revision
petitioners did not raise this issue before the trial Court
and now, for the first time, before this Court they are
raising this issue. The ground urged by the petitioner
does not have any legal sanctity. The jural relationship is
admitted and service of notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act is also undisputed. The trial Court
rightly decreed the suit and as such, the revision petition
being devoid of any merits needs to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
