IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.303 OF 2018 BETWEEN Dr. S.K.Guharoy, S/o. Late Sri. Subimal, Aged about 48 years, C/o. Medicare Hospital, #66, Sultanpalya Main Road, Bengaluru-560032.
Mobile-9449089000 …Petitioner (Sri. S.K.Guharoy, Party in Person) AND Dr. P.Ramamurthy, S/o. Late Paramasivam, Aged about 77 years, C/o. Medicastar Hospital, No.17/1, A Mudaliyar Road, Off Seppings Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560001.
…Respondent (By Sri. V.Viswanath Setty, Advocate) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of Small Causes Court Act, against the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.569/2015 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, dismissing the suit for recovery of money.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in S.C.569/2015 on the file of I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH 11). The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovering Rs.15,450/- from the defendant for having installed three blinders in room Nos. 13, 25 and 26 of the hospital belonging to the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working as a consultant in the said hospital by sitting in consultation room No. 13. As there were no blinders to the windows, the patients were put to inconvenience and therefore the plaintiff decided to install the blinders for the benefit of the patients. He demanded repayment of Rs.15,450/- that he had paid towards purchase of the blinders from the defendant. Since that money was not paid, he brought the suit.
2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, entire transaction is denied. The trial court dismissed the suit by passing the impugned order with cost of Rs.1,000/- and therefore this appeal.
3. The revision petitioner appears in person and argues. Learned counsel Sri V.Viswanath Shetty has argued for respondent. The entire reasons assigned by the trial court for dismissing the suit is found in paras 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment. They are reproduced below : -
“12. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, admittedly the property bearing No.1/17 belongs to defendant. There is an agreement MOU between the defendant and Sri. Ashok K., Babu which eventually was cancelled and the plaintiff is not party to that agreement, it shows that the plaintiff is third party. It is the contention of the defendant that the defendant not appointed the plaintiff as doctor nor the plaintiff is a tenant, but the plaintiff is broker.
13. Plaintiff in support of his case got examined PW2 Receptionist in Medic Star Hospital and the ASI Bharathi Nagar Police Station but the evidence of PW2 and PW3 not helped to the case of the plaintiff. PW2 and PW3 not deposed anything about the amount payable to plaintiff by the defendant.
14. In this case by going through the evidence it shows that the defendant not appointed the plaintiff to see the patients in hospital. Plaintiff installed blinder for Room No.13, 25 and 26 without the permission of defendant there is no oral or documentary evidence to show that after permission of defendant or Sri. Ashok K., Babu the plaintiff has installed the blinder. Evidence shows that the plaintiff installed the blinder after the agreement between defendant and Ashok Babu it shows that the Ashok Babu in possession of the same and the plaintiff is in permissive possession by Ashok Babu, hence there is no need to direct the defendant to pay amount get done any work from the plaintiff. Hence defendant cannot be directed to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. Hence in view of above discussion point no.1 answered in the Negative”.
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 20.8.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE Ckl