IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG.ALC§E'.Evv.'
DATED THIS THE 25:23 DAY OF AUGUSfi'%f_f%D0%§T3AL$Lj&&& x
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR..JUs'1f1cE '
CIVIL REVISION Ir3ETI"I'i£' §V:'I~:'.I\I0." ?2 3;2ods%f k
BETWEEN:
Sri. A.K. Keshavachar,
Aged about87yca1'?«,v . " '_ .
S/0. AL. I{1'ishn£?r11ii'%'?< 1w,:=._ ::
No.45}, 10¢ ~ V
V.H. Compiex,€Gi1?ii1aga}:,» '
II Phase,
Bazlgaloree 560$:-35. _ . : Peflfioner
(By Sri. Bayyarareddy, Advocates)
B3;*"_£_g:'5l§_)i"@ Mgrggmagara Palike,
Rsp1'e":sc1_f:tc{i «ijy __i1:s' Cenrunissiencr,
corporation
Sq1iarcé,B'az1ga1orc~2. : Respondent
.1 ip fflagaraju, Advocate)
Civil Revision Petitimiz is filad U/S. 18 cf tbs
V Small Causes Courts Act against tins Judmcnt
A and decree dated 02.06.2005 passed in S.C.No.862/2604 on
the flit: 0f 1211*:-: 111 Additional Judge, Court of small causes,
r__<""-~–~…_,,»,
3»)
Bangalore {SCCH No.18), dismissing the suit for recovery of
money.
This pefition coming on for dictating orders;
the Court. made the f011owin§:-
The petitioner, who was the . }311
the file of the Ccurlz of 8113331
Bangalore, has challenged the ficxiffc-zcmeéhs Qt anti’ V
order of dismissal of the said sm§J.1– r.:.a¥1:§e..?Acase “that was filed by
him against the responde’fi’i’.’éA’f- Palike –
scieking recovery bis; .ss_1i:.t;1 “R5.5f~.,234/- with interest thereon {:33
12% per annixmé; _
2. ; ”fl1éV’a1*fguments of the learned Counsel fer
fiviai*i:ies”t11fle arises for my detemxm ation in ibis
Ieséisién» is; .. = ” V
é ‘*¥€;h’e.ther the learned Small Causes Judge was
jusfiifiéd in dismisfiing the suit of the pe’£ii.ioner~
holding that the respendeut — Corporation was
3 “right in recovering from him a sum of Rs.3,334/–
” _ improvement cxpcnscs at the time of
. 7 tfai1sferriI1g katizxa in the name of the petitioner –
in respect of the pmpcrtjz in qucstion?”
(~..S””\—-~’~»-*2
3. My findings on this point is in the ‘xzewtivgef
fo210W3’_I1g
4. The ease of the pefitioner,;”:as?::v~erz’ed i1′: 11i,e
in the said case is as under:
:.-1) The plaintiff ha$.beenAtE1e”LveW’ner (if the heuse
bearing No.4E5l..V:e” siLiL1a:§;ev’. Cross,
V.}:I.Co1I1p_i_ex, ‘Ward
N954, he filed an
applicatiefiie-?:aifereV:T–fl:1’e Vrésf§endent~Corporati0n
Hiafrespeet of the said
Iv._:1ou$eA A’i.ii”.hi:S1’~fa:r}e¥urf . Whfle Considering the
‘a;3piieé,fi0.fi’ *~ respondent–Corpora.tien
a sum of Rs.3,334/- as
4-:.,cV§);*z<iixtiof1" };:ree_edent for efieefing katha in his
respect of the said house; similar
V -teas made against other persons who
" had. similar applicatiens and therefore,
% ;1ie«;_petitioner~plajntifi" and also the said ethers
Q * eeeemed their Writ Petition N0511422 to 1441 of
V' " "@001 before this Court and this Court, Whiie
aliewing the said Writ petitions following the
decisien of this Court in the ease of Asian
5. The said ease of the plajntifi” was contested
respondent-Corporatien by filing its w1*itten3V.:’..’é’té§tLe1;i1etit
eentending that the petitioner-p1a3’11tit1′ t’e,pa_.yu
the imprevemeflt expenses as pmvi’ded–.’_’_’uIide1*.
and 467 of the KaI’nataka”t.Ztf’m;2ieij§a1__ Qcdt*§ti~t:a;’t*;e:1§ Act V L’
(hereinafter eeferred te gs ‘fer eilort) as
authorised by the ” the Corporation
anfi therefore the respendent»
Corporation amount from the
pefitienerfpléthfitifififi ha: eoritended in the Saici
written steitefiitent had to make the payment
of balance a1fi€.e1t1t.of ifx11:irf)ve1″neI1t expensee since he had
:.’f’iiiade tot’ ijiipzwfement expenses in part instead of
as per Sections 466 and 46? ef the
t gag: such the demand for the payment cf
” ~ 5 1 iniprevezfierlt expenses was jusfified.
Sri C.B.Si’iI1iV8.SaI1, the learned counsel for the
“jpeti.tiesner-plaitltifl’, Strongly centended that despite the order
” eftuus Court in the said Writ petitions that the eelleetien of
t”‘””r_\’\”‘\…«–.
is directed to refund the said amount cf f~2s.3,334/- to the
petitiencr-plaintiff’ with interest therctorz at the rate 91*’ per
aflnum from the date of filing of the said
till actual paymc11t. Decree shall be Qrawn u
%
3’1-ldqe
Sgsl