IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.274 OF 2019 BETWEEN Sri R.Vishwanath S/o Late V.Raghunath Major, R/at No.14/80 1st and 2nd Floor 12th Main, 2nd Block Near ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar Bengaluru – 560 010 (By Sri K.R.Srinivasan, Advocate) AND Smt. Indrani Sreenivas W/o B.R.Sreenivas Aged about 55 years R/at No.619/B, 36th Cross Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010 (By Sri M.Sreenivasa, Advocate) …Petitioner …Respondent This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed on IA in SC.No.707/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and XXVIII ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, rejecting the IA filed under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of CPC.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel at the time of admission. Respondent’s counsel is also present.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in S.C.No.707/2017 on the file of the Small Cause Court, Bengaluru, a suit for evicting him from the residential property bearing No.14/80, 1st and 2nd Floor, 12th Main, 2nd Block, Near ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
3. The petitioner made an application under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for seeking summons to Deputy Secretary, Bengaluru Development Authority and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Development Authority for examining them as witnesses. The trial Court dismissed this application giving reason that the petitioner has not disclosed the purpose for which these two witnesses are to be examined in support of his case. It is also observed that examination of these two witnesses serves no purpose.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not purchased the second floor of the property and therefore he is not the owner as also the landlord of the second floor of the said property. The jural relationship of the parties is also disputed. For this purpose these two witnesses are to be examined. It is also his argument that the respondent has purchased only ground and first floor and that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of first and second floors. The witnesses are required to be examined about the actual contention taken by the defendant, and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application.
5. If according to the petitioner there is no sale of the second floor of the property and thereby the respondent is not his land lord, examination of the officers is not at all necessary. They are no body to speak about the ownership of the respondent with respect to second floor. The sale deed is already marked as an exhibit. The document can be interpreted whether there is sale of second floor of the property or not. It is to be mentioned here that whenever an application seeking witness summons is made by a party to the suit or proceeding, that application should precisely disclose the purpose for which they are to be examined. The application made by the petitioner does not disclose any specific reason. It is just stated that evidence of the officers is very much required. This is not sufficient. The trial Court has come to right conclusion. Revision petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Kmv*