IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION.210 OF 2019 (SC) BETWEEN:
Sri. B.Sadashiva, S/o.Late Babu Shetty, aged about 50 years, R/at.No.619/T, 36th Cross, 12th Main, 2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010. …Petitioner (By Sri.Ganesh.A., Advocate) AND:
Sri.M.G.Jagadeesh, S/o.Late Gangappa Aged about 54 years No.897, Dwarakanagar, Channasandra, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Bengaluru-560 098.
... Respondent This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act., against the order dated 01.03.2019 passed in SC.No.947/2018 on the file of the III Additional Small Causes Judge, XXIX ACMM., Bengaluru (SCCH.18) rejecting the application filed under order XI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to permit the defendant to deliver the interrogatories in writing.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner assails the order of the trial Court filed under Order XI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The petitioner is defendant in the said suit for eviction. Questioning the ownership of the plaintiff, he sought for permission to issue interrogatories. The trial Court has rejected the said application by giving reasons that the tenant cannot question the ownership of the property. On perusal of the interrogatories, it is found that the petitioner wants particulars about the ownership of the respondent in respect of suit property.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is a son of Gangappa. The other legal representatives of Gangappa have not joined in filing this suit. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent alone has no locus-standi to institute the suit.
This argument is fallacious. Any member of the family of Gangappa can institute a suit for eviction of tenant. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that interrogatories cannot be permitted to be issued in these circumstances. There are no merits in this revision petition. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SB