IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.463/2019 BETWEEN:
Dr. S K GUHAROY S/O LATE SRI SUBIMAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS C/O MEDICARE HOSPITAL #66, SULTANPALYA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 032.
...PETITIONER (DR. S.K.GUHAROY, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
DR. P. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS C/O MEDICASTAR HOSPITAL NO.1/17, A MUDALIYAR ROAD OFF. SEPPINGS ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2019 PASSED IN SC.569/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2019 in S.C.No.569/2015 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, Bangalore, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,450/- with interest at 18% p.a. is dismissed.
2. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondent is defendant in S.C.No.569/2015. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit stating that the defendant is the owner of property bearing No.1/17, A.M. Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 001 where the defendant is running a hospital. Plaintiff being the Doctor in the hospital of the defendant between March 2014 to October 2014 served the patients. It is stated that the plaintiff observed that the windows of room No.13, 25 and 26 was without any blinders/curtains which made the patients inside very uncomfortable as everything from outside could be seen. It is stated that, with the concurrence of the defendant he informed one ‘window line’ and subsequently one Sameer, visited the hospital, took measurement of three windows on 16.06.2014. The blinders were installed in Room No.13, 25 and 26. Subsequently a bill for a sum of Rs.15,450/- was raised and plaintiff had paid the said amount. Subsequently the plaintiff demanded the said amount from the defendant. As the defendant failed to pay the said amount, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 20.03.2015 which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. But the defendant did not reply. Subsequently the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,450/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the defendant.
4. On issuance of suit summons the defendant appeared and filed written statement and denied the plaint averments in toto. The defendant stated that he is a respectable medical practitioner, who was practicing for more than 40 years in the Medic Star hospital at No.17/1, A.M. Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. It is stated that the defendant constructed the hospital and installed the necessary infrastructure including the required equipment for the hospital. He has also obtained loan from Canara Bank. To look after the hospital he was looking for a Doctor and he had given paper publication in Deccan Herald on 23.03.2014 and subsequently on 28.09.2014. In response to the said advertisement the plaintiff, who is unknown to the defendant had approached him and represented that he had good contacts with number of Doctors and he would bring the deserving Doctors provided he is given commission for the services being rendered by him. The defendant in his written statement has also stated that there are few litigations between the parties and it also discloses the memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and defendant on 24.06.2014. It also further discloses payment of Rs.1,00,000/- commission to the plaintiff.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issue as to ‘Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for.’ The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3 apart from marking the documents Exs.P1 to P.3. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked the documents Exs.D1 to D14 in support of his contention. The Trial Court on assessing the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff filed CRP No.303/2018 before this Court. This Court by order dated 25.07.2019 allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Paragraph 4 of the order dated 25.04.2019 of this Court reads as follows :-
“4. In proof of the plaintiff’s case, three documents Exs.P1 to P3 are produced. From the defendant’s side, Exs.D1 to D14 are produced. The impugned judgment does not show the discussion on the documents at all. If paras 13 and 14 are read, it can very well be said that there is no clarity. Lot of ambiguity can be seen. The petitioner and the respondent’s counsel submit that they are unable to understand the language. Even I too am of the same opinion. In view of this, I find that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the trial court. Hence, the following order :-
(i) Revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court for appreciation of the evidence already on record and decision on merits according to law. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is entitled to lead further evidence.
The parties shall appear before the trial court on 20.08.2019.”
6. While remanding the suit to the trial Court this Court has made it clear that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is entitled to lead further evidence. The trial Court after remand, on hearing the parties, under impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is in revision before this Court.
7. Heard the petitioner – party-in-person and perused the material on record.
8. The petitioner – party-in-person would submit that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit by observing that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that defendant was appointed to see the patients in his hospital. It is his submission that the plaintiff had entered into Memorandum Of Understanding dated 24.06.2014 which would make it clear that the plaintiff was working as Chief Executive Officer (for short ‘the CEO’) of the Medic Star Hospital run by the defendant. He further submits that during his tenure as Doctor in the hospital run by the defendant he had put blinders to three rooms viz., 13, 25 and 26 and had paid a sum of Rs.15,450/-. As the defendant failed to pay the said amount, the suit was filed. It is his further submission that his prayer is to return all those blinders and not the money he spent on them.
9. On hearing the party in person and on perusal of the material on record the only point that arises for consideration is as to ‘Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff ?’ Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons :-
The plaintiffs case is that the defendant was running the hospital at property bearing No.1/17, Arunachalam Muddaliar Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore – 560 001. As he had entered into memorandum of understanding, he was asked to look after the hospital. During his tenure as Doctor in the hospital run by the defendant, he has installed three blinders amounting to Rs.15,450/- to room numbers 13, 25 and 26. But the defendant has failed to pay the amount spent by him towards installation of those blinders. The only question, which is to be gone into in this petition is as to whether there is material on record to establish that the plaintiff has spent the amount as claimed by him towards installation of blinders to room numbers 13, 25 and 26. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3. PW.3 is ASI of Bharathinagar Police Station. He has deposed in his evidence as follows :-
“When he visited to hospital the staff of hospital and the plaintiff making some list of items but this witness not deposed about the installation of blinders by the plaintiff.”
10. A reading of the evidence of PW.3 indicates that list of articles were made and the plaintiff had taken away certain of the items and he does not know which are those items, he has taken away from the Medic Star Hospital. There is no mention of blinders in the entire evidence of PW.3. The plaintiff has placed on record Exs.P1 to P3, which are legal notice and one postal receipt. The plaintiff has specifically averred that he had called on one Sameer, who visited the hospital for installation of blinders, but he has not examined the said Sameer or the plaintiff has not placed on record the bill raised by the person, who has installed the blinders. In the absence of material to establish the installation of blinders during his tenure in the hospital to indicate the installation of the blinders, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Moreover, as observed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has also not placed on record to establish that he was working as Doctor in the hospital run by the defendant. On careful examination of the material on record, I am of the view, that the trial Court has not committed any material or jurisdictional error to interfere with. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms