High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri A R Jayaram vs Smt Sumathi on 2 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri A R Jayaram vs Smt Sumathi on 2 July, 2009
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
1N Tm: HIGH COURT 012* KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02% my 0:2 JULY, 2009f ~ ,

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRs..;{JsTIc1:«:»B.xr,:~1A§§}§§*¢A*§'¥1+;r#A.'.'_j,  V

H.R.R.P.No.27é::!2~No.959, ETH MAIN
«_ M BLGCK, VEVEKANANDANAGAR,

" "w.MYSQi?E

 RESPONDENT

(B3,? .. s UDAYASHANKAR PANDFFH, ADVKFOR

REjsPmnf)EN’r 33 SRI.M.J.JA(}AN MORAN $5
SRl:B.S.SRIKAN’I’H, ADVS. FOR C/R)

THIS HRRP FILED {US 115 OF’ CFC AGAINST THE

‘”<jRDEI:2 DATED 99.09.2903 PASSED IN R.R.m.26/2008 ON
THE FILE 0;? THE III AI}DL.DIS'i"'RICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITIOR
AND SETTING AS¥DE THE ORSER DATED 12.03.2003
AND 27.61.2006 PASSED ON IA.N€).4 AND 5
RESPECTIVELY IN I~IRC.NO.}.?]2{)% CIN THE F§LE OF THE
H ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) MYSORE, ALLQWENG THE

HRRi?.N€3.27Q.2GE38

IA.NC).4 FILED {US 43 OF KR AC1' SEEKINGT"'»FOR
REJECTION AND NON~JURIS}f)IC'TION OF THE co::R_T..A:gD
DISMISSING ma IA.NO.5 FILED 11/0 47 RULE.'..14oFL-(:96;

SEEKING FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DT. 12;0.3.Q3–.V?'Fj"- 1 ~

This HRRP coming on for ADMISSIOISE "<if1"i"§1jvi.<; "t1.*«1j§'2,Vti3;:'&VV

court delivered the following-


oRDEi;T3

This revision pcfition     tenant
chaflenging the {under  by the 1%

Add1.Civi1 Judge; (Jr.Dn}:.i”.?*43′.$?§I%;_ ‘1’;/;}:2;’fqo.26/2006 by
which the: otdgéf i.A.No.IV and an
order dated by the 11 Addmivfl

Judge ‘£3e_ezI SHct aside.

2. flfhe if the case for the purpose of

* sags rééism petition are that the respondcznt had

2000 on the file of the If Addl. Civil

Jii:igefJr..f}:fi}’i,_ fioiysore invoking Secfion 2I(1)(a) 8:. (11) of the

Rent Contml Act, 1961. During the pefidency of

V’ t}_A;:e; eviction pinceading, LA.No.IV was preferred by the

‘ Ifiéfifiéyner herein under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent

” 1999. The said appiication was aiiowed on 12.3.2003.

Beéng aggrieved by the said order I.A.No.V was filed by the
respondent herein lifldfit’ Order XLVII Rake I. CPO sceidng

mview of the said arder. Thc trial court dismissed the said

2

/’es

HR§§P.N<3.2"?O. 253138

appfication also-. Being aggrieved by the the

respondent herein filed revision petition under

of the Karnataka Rem Act chaiienging

12.3.2003 passed o1:1E.A.No.IV oniyiiii »r2.R.r'§o..i2.6) iét;-oo.'–.i'=1'fie.

first revisional court after hea1ing.""boii1TA'éidoS

aside not only the order order

ciated 27.1.2006 passed on by the
same, the tenant has r;éir§§$iof1'»»pofition.

3. 3 have cooizooi the petitioner and

the lcazned cou.i1s;%:’A1.V for f,E1e iospo:n.dc£1t.

4. I.caIoz;éd..co1:1iVsi2.I’fof”‘~!.3Vié J:pet1’tio1::c:r at the first instance

contegaérrgi th@. the revisional court was not right in

alsiizié” not order dated i2.3.20(}3 passed on

1.,A.,§z¢5;1$f’i;.§;t 45;s§i.~o:der dated 27.1.2005 passed on £.A.No.V

by’tho since the revision petition R.R.No.26/ 2006

‘~..«._ :¥as on’3}§_ 3~agai31st the order dated 12.3.2003 passed on

In support of his contentiozl he has relied upon a

…_ cieo§isioz1 of the Apex Court reportofi in AIR 19??) SC 1185

‘ ,. A another decision reportcd in AH? 15328 Calcutta 418.

5…

§~IRRP.i\§Q.27G.2§G8

of the said ontier. The said review application was I’t’5§Qt6d

on 27. 1.2006. However, the respondent challenged

dated 12.3.2003 passed on I.A.No.IV on1y_.1;e?fe:1fe’:the” gm’

zevisional court, but did not the~i’

27.1.2096 passed on I.A.I§¥o.V

application came to be re3’eetet’i’;~. Nevexttiieieseritultie first Vt

zevisienal court has set’}-aside ‘finders.

8. From the above ‘fa-fits, lit appageet that when the

order was passed on vi..wA.j\io.V–.ett rejecting the

review the latter order did not
n1e;rgeV:’v–wi’i.h} 011 the other hand the

rejecfion o;€__a re\ii;ew’e.oi:JyT’re~affir111s or confirms the order

paséedv the ‘fi1etV___i;t$.etance. Under the eimuzzastances the

~:fes§;o;:1ei_ent«.vA:Ve11ght to have chaflengeci the order dated

aiggfvtaefom the first revisions} court. Therefore,

t}ne’.44″:aesip:o1itient ought to have ehalienged both the orders

K x ‘ ‘t;efe;e the first revisional court and in the absence of the

it was not right in setting aside both the orders of the

9. In suppon: of the above reasoning, the Judgment ef the

Apex Court in the ease of Kanohar 8: Others V3.

/1-

E~ERR?.N0.2″}’O.2008

Jaipalsiug as Others} reported in 2008(2) (‘:ivi_l___ Law
Journal 59Oi11 the following terms: T

“It is also incurred to contend th,tiii”in” .
of this nature, namely where a” ‘review-Speiiticn
was dismissed, the doc¢r1’ne’»of will I*¢;;::)@_§~-i,,,..« 1;’
afiy ‘3PPFia’1tion whatstfiver. V ” – ‘~ * ‘

It is one thing to ‘eg}}«ebIhat ihei reepor’wlerit
was entitled to file an appiimiioni for. review}? in
terms of Section 1.14 re¢1ci”:vit_h’O?*:ierXLVIIARuIe 1
of Code of Civil ~.ii»i;’S’ww£her ihing
to say that the decree paieeed’ ein’»fc’Ieour ef the
respendent merged yiiih ::heVorc’£’er ‘df$niissing the
review appligxzticin “‘Ma1tef–.Vm:’gI¢1’Vhave been
different, the ‘-.re’:i2iei.v ‘app’Eiee1Lfion had been
allow-3d”Ve1’t3zer;’. wfwlly or 1’21 part in terms whereof
an a;,npIi;:£i_zion”fi:>r ‘ejceaziien ‘*g)f”£he decree could
hazge ‘bee}1’*fi_led of the modified

;Zi€{3?’8″(_:’; 3′, _ V ‘V

10. in feet the. Sushilktmtar Sen Vs. State of

1975 SC 1185 the efiect of allowing

’31’ ::ft§”z*i,e*¢J_’ie.e;,}j;3i;lCzation has been stated wherein it has been

vacate the decree yassed and the decree

that”isv”‘s311)Vsequenfly passed in review whether it modifies

V’ ~.fi:=:x}e.r.sesH er confirms the decree erigiaally passed is a new

supexccééng the original one. In the said (2213::

” ‘”1f~¢£erence is made to the decision of the Calcutta High Ceurt

reported 311 AIR 1928 Calcutta 43,8 referred to by muresei fer
fiefifioner. In View of the said dictam, the first revisional

court was not right 313:1 setting aside both the (‘)I’dCI’$ when

£2.

HRRP.§’~Eo. 2″3O.;330S8

there was no chafienge made to {he ()I’d€I’ dated 21.}-,_._20{)6

passed on I.A.No.V, in View of the fact that the:*eV:’e:%§fé§:s:’V’no

merger of the order dated 12.3.2003 in

27.1.2006 passed by the trial court.

Under the cix*cumsta;£3.e.e’:;. ;e”<;*isi{::a1 :isV'

allowed without going 'zxtgexrite " of matter.
However, the respondeizfeise resc{r'v_ee1"' to chaiienge the
order dated 27. }..a'20€36 tria} court if

he is so '
sal-

“*e * ‘e e Iudge