Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Saifulla vs Sri Cuddapah Niyazi Sadith Ali Khan on 2 August, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
RFA No. 347 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAMMED SAIFULLA
S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUFF
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.773, BEHIND POPS
FOOD PRODUCTS,
NEAR BANGALORE ENGINEERING WORKS
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 032
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CUDDAPAH NIYAZI SADITH ALI KHAN
@ C N SADAT ALI KHAN
S/O NISAR AHMED KHAN C N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 2. MRS NIYAZI TANZEEM KAUSER SADATH
MALATESH
KC W/O C N SADAT ALI KHAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF BOTH PRESENT RESIDING AT
KARNATAKA DAMMAM, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO. 6/80, A RAVINDRA NAGAR
KADAPA
REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY SRI MUSHARRAF ALI KHAN
MUHAMMED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
RFA No. 347 of 2015
S/O LATE LAL KHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.4/1, 2ND CROSS
MUNIVEERAPPA LAYOUT, SHAMPURA
BANGALORE-560045
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.Z.A.KHURESHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2014
PASSED IN OS NO.8365/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT - VIII C/c XXXVII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREED THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION, MESNE PROFIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri H. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Suit in O.S.No.8365/2012 came to be decreed and
operative portions of the order reads is as under:
"The suit filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant is decreed with exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/-
payable to the plaintiffs.
It is hereby declared that the judgment and
decree dated 7.6.2008 in O.S.No.10054/2006 is not
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
binding and enforceable against the plaintiffs in respect
of the suit premises.
Subsequently, it is hereby declared that the
possession taken by the defendant in Execution
No.1190/2010 is illegal.
The defendant is hereby directed to deliver and
put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit
schedule property in good condition within ninety days
from the date of this order.
There shall be a separate enquiry regarding
mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil
Procedure.
Office is directed to send a copy of the Office
Lease Agreement to Deputy Commissioner to recover
deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.88,000/- from the
defendant as arrears of land revenue and report
compliance.
The Registrar of City Civil Court is directed to file
a complaint against the defendant with a copy of this
judgment and the Office Lease Agreement before the
jurisdictional court for the offences punishable under
section 193, 209 and 210 of IPC.
Draw decree accordingly"
3. Appellant is now aggrieved only with regard to the
action to be taken in respect of directions of the Trial Court
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
insofar as the 'Office Lease Agreement' for the offence
punishable under Sections 193, 209 and 210 IPC.
4. The learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned
judgment, came to the conclusion that the 'Office Lease
Agreement' produced by the defendant/appellant was a
concocted and forged document. Therefore, directed the
Registrar, City Civil Court to file complaint for the aforesaid
offences.
5. Learned Trial Judge should have been more specific
in passing such direction in accordance with law. Such a
procedure has not been properly adopted by the learned Judge
in the Trial Court. Therefore, exercising the appellate powers
vested in this Court, appellant/defendant seeks to set aside the
direction with regard to the registration of the criminal
complaint.
6. Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that Court has recorded a categorical
finding that it is a concocted document besides being
improperly stamped.
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
7. He also pointed out that the trial Court has passed
an order impugned in the document and for collection of the
stamp duty, the document is to be sent to the Deputy
Commissioner for collection of proper stamp duty and penalty
and also directed the Registrar, City Civil Court in lodging the
complaint which is perfectly justified in the facts and
circumstances.
8. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
9. Since the procedure adopted by the learned Trial
Judge in the impugned judgment with regard to the initiating of
the criminal action is improper for want of necessary details
and the document has not been marked even for the purpose
as a Court document.
10. Taking note of the fact that the suit itself is of the
year 2012 and the possession of the property has been handed
over to the appellant and the respondents, if the direction with
regard to the criminal action is set aside, ends of justice would
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
be met in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping
intact the other directions issued by the learned Trial Judge.
Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) While confirming the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.8365/2012, the directions
issued by the learned Trial Judge to the
Registrar, City Civil Court to file a complaint for
the offence punishable under Sections 193, 209
and 210 of Indian Penal Code as against the
appellant herein is hereby set aside in the
interest of justice.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
