IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.302 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Smt. B.N. Ambika w/o Sri C. Viswanath, 49 yrs. r/o Hunasamaranahalli village Jala Hobli Bangalore North Tq.562 157. …Petitioner (By Sri. R.B. Sadasivappa, Advocate) AND:
Sri Ramanjanappa s/o late Sri Ramaiah 60 yrs, r/a No.673 First Floor, EWS II Stage 12th Main, Yelahanka New Town Bangalore-560 064. …Respondent (By Sri. J. Jagadeeshwar, Advocate) **** This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 06.07.13 passed in Misc.1088/2008 on the file of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly allowing the petition filed under order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec 151 of CPC and the Exparte judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in O.S.2444/2007 is set aside.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2013 passed in Misc. No.1088/2008 by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore whereby the Court below allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC thereby setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.2444/2007 by the Court below.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as follows:
The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.2444/2007 for a decree for the relief for declaration, possession and mesne profits in respect of immovable property bearing No.674, EWS II Stage, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru-560 064. In the said suit, the respondent herein was arrayed as sole defendant. The respondent was placed exparte before the Court below in the said suit and after hearing the petitioner, the Court below passed an exparte judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
3. Aggrieved by the exparte judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.2444/2007, the respondent herein filed Misc.No.1088/2008 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner herein. In the said Misc. petition, it was the specific contention of the respondent herein that, the suit summons were not duly served upon him and on account of suit summons not having served upon him, he had no knowledge about the institution/prosecution of the suit and consequently, the same resulted in exparte decree being passed against him. In this regard, it is specifically contended on behalf of the respondent Ramanjanappa that he was working as a peon in Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka and the suit summons appears to have been served upon a different Ramanjanappa, Mechanical Department, Wheel and Axel Plant, Yelahanka, Bengaluru who has nothing do with the respondent herein. It is therefore contended that since the suit summons in the aforesaid O.S.No.2444/2007 had not been served on the respondent but on a completely different person by name Ramanjanappa working in the Mechanical Department, Wheel and Axel Plant, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the summons had been duly served upon him and holding that the service was sufficient, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner herein.
4. The petitioner herein entered appearance in the suit in Misc.No.1088/2008 and contested the same. It is specifically contended on behalf of the petitioner herein that the respondent was working in the Mechanical Department intentionally and deliberately and not appear in the Court below, despite the suit summons having served upon him. It was alleged that the contention of the respondent herein that the suit summons had been served upon different Ramanjanappa and upon the respondent herein was a false allegation and neither valid nor sufficient grounds had been made out by the respondent for setting aside the judgment and decree passed against him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner herein sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent.
5. On behalf of the respondent, he examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to P8 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the petitioner, she examined herself as RW1 and Ex.R1 to R8 on her behalf.
6. After hearing both the sides, the Court below allowed the Misc.Petition on the ground that the evidence on record in Ex.P4 to P6 produced by the respondent herein clearly indicated that the summons had not been served upon him and the same had been served on a different Ramanjanappa who was working in Mechanical Department. At Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment and decree, the Court below come to conclusion that the respondent was not working in the Mechanical Department and since he was working in Personnel Branch, the suit summons had been served upon some other person in the Mechanical Department as revealed from Ex.P4 to Ex.P6.
7. Under these circumstances, accepting the contention of the respondent that the suit summons had not been duly served upon him, the Court below has proceeded to allow the Misc. Petition filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order allowing the Misc. Petition No.1088/2008, the petitioner is before this Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. During the pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1/2019 under Section 151 of CPC for permission to produce additional documents which according to the petitioner to show that the respondent was working in the Mechanical Department at Rail Wheel Factory during the year 2007. It is contended that the documents produced along with the application are documents obtained under Right to Information Act which was clearly falsify the contention of the respondent that he was not working in the Mechanical Department during the relevant point of time. It is therefore contended that in the light of the findings recorded at para Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned order, the documents now sought to be produced by the petitioner are extremely relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties in the present revision petition. As such, it is contended that it was necessary that the petitioner is permitted to produce these additional documents and an opportunity be given to the petitioner to substantiate her case by adducing oral evidence in this regard also.
10. Per contra, the respondent has filed his detailed statement of objections interalia opposing the allegations and claim made in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2019. In addition thereto, the respondent has also produced three additional documents which according to the respondent would falsify the claim of the petitioner. A perusal of the additional documents produced along with I.A.No.1/2019 coupled with the specific finding recorded by the Court below at para Nos.13 and 14 of the impugned order will indicate that the documents now sought to be produced are relevant and material for determination of adjudication of issues in controversy between the parties. As stated supra, the Court below came to the conclusion at para Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned order that the respondent was working in the Personnel Branch and not in Mechanical Department as contended by the petitioner herein. This finding is sought to be rebutted by the petitioner by producing the said documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances coupled with the fact that the respondent herein has also produced additional documents in support of his objection, I am of the opinion that all the documents were produced are relevant and material and determined for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy involved in the present revision petition as well as in Misc. Petition No.1088/2008. Accordingly, it is necessary that the matter is remitted back to the Court below to afford an opportunity to both the sides to establish their respective contentions by adducing oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
11. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is hereby allowed. The statement of objections filed by the respondent to I.A.No.1/2019 is also hereby placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The civil revision petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2013 passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc.1088/2008 is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to permit both the petitioner as well as the respondent to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions including cross examination of the witnesses to be examined on both sides.
(iv) Parties are at liberty to adduce such further relevant evidence as they deemed fit in support of their respective contentions.
(v) Parties to undertake to appear before the Court below on 10.01.2020 without further notice from the Court.
12. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2007 and the exparte judgment and decree was of the year 2008, I deem it fit and proper to direct the Trial Court to make out the trial and dispose of the Misc. Petition within three months from 10.01.2020.
13. Further, having regard to the long pendency of the matter, it is needless to say that both the parties and their respective counsel should co-operate for expeditious disposal of the Misc. Petition by the Court below.
Ordered accordingly.
I.A.No.1/2019 and the documents produced along with it as well as the statement of objections filed by the respondent to I.A.No.1/2019 and the documents produced along with the same are hereby directed to be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith along with the Lower Court records.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD