; (9
IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16% DAY or FEBRUARY. 20-2-9
BEFORE v_v .V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND « "
CIVIL REVISION perxrrormo. 1-cg' 1* V'
BETWEEN: I I V ' A V' J
1. Syed Dastagir.
S/0. Late S. Gaffar.
Major. Door I\Eo.446_._
Shaiivahana Road. I
Nazarbad, VA - _
Mysore »-- 570 010. V '
2. M. A.Sha§:h'€1'Eaj'; _ g
S/o. Late Anaihalrajiah. f .
M /s. Agianm-aj'a'i';¢h .Son$A,.
Paint and I9*iait;:j1.wa;'e'*1\/IVe'rc'h2_1_nt.
Adj;1ce_11t. to eNe'1z1ifa_jaiah,
Palm Shop No'.'.E"E": /2
New No.34'?/2. Ashok"a,Road.
Lashkaf"Moha11a. V' "
E';fIy"so're M 570 001.
" _____ .. v Petitioners
' Joseph. Adv.)
AND
' Riekabchand Challani.
Age-:3, about 78 years.
" ' {?.~€o.15. New No.347,
* .,_z'--_XShoka Road.
Lashkar Mohaila.
Mysore - 570 001.
[J
2. Nooijaliziii.
W/o. Basheer Ahmed.
Majorj)/0. Late S. Gallar.
D. No. 1494. Muslim Block.
Behind Cl'1L1F'('.l"l.
Htmsur. ' :_. «
-'.Respoiide11t_s'e H
(By Smt. Mrudula Adv. for Sri. '17.:
Adv. for R.l] "
This Civil Revision Petition pi*a13l/'i--ngv--t'o set'v--lV-asivde thjellordesf
dated 1 1*" December 2008 i'eje(:t'jin*g_{1l1e é1;1piiea.tio11'S._i'ovr..addL1cii'1g
additional evidence passed in R.A'.s, 179/2O0?'2i1'id3 RA. 213/2007
on the file ofl Addl. Civil Judge (s1:.i3n_) 'M._ysore;*
This petition coming day the Court. made
the following: 5 - "
R.A.No.i1l3/t2'0Q7"la'r'e the correctness and the legality
of the appeals dated .1 l--l2~2008 by the
l Add4i;ii("inial (3liVii.___{Jttdgge Sr.I)n. & CJM, lvlysore. whereunder
app1&i(n§a1;ion? i'oi"'a_ddit.i()I1al evidence had been dismissed.
in nutshell are as follows:
l""l'he-__lp'a:"1.'ies are referred to as per the ranlcs in the Court
W The plaintiff" (W respondent herein} who is the landlord
” ,a11d’*owner of the non–residen1:ial premises bearing No. 347/2,
Road. Ixashkzxi’ Mohalia. i\/Iysoi’e~57000i instituted
Wt
‘..-J
ejectmeni suit agaitist. the defendanis [petitioners l and herein)
in O.S.No.39/2005 on the file of the IV Additional ‘eixjii..4’_J~iidge.
{Jr.Dn) Mysore. The defendants on service of n_e:f;ice”
and filed their written statement denying Ihe”pl’ai:r}f Vave’r.mc.nt’s..j
The trial Court framed initially fouij issseu-es. A’Z.StI1;5’SF:C1lo¥;€–}j1ti3kf’_’an .
additional issue was also frain__ed aaidl’ o11n.’t§opfisi_deri.ng ihe~
pleadings. evidenoe on record andxkthe d.oCurn’enls ‘produced by its
judgment and decree dated”2–4-.§,OQ?jud’e§:reedthe suit.
3. Aggriei/ed__ 1del’endan1s filed two
appeals i.e..:_. the second revision
peiit.ioner)._ by the first revision
also came io be dismissed by
judgment anddecreehdaljie»dT1..»s.ls l2–2008 and the judgment passed
by ll”1€j4′-:(‘)vL1u}*.’i’ below _eame to be confirmed.
V pendency of these two appeals before the
is-si.jAddi:io§i:;1.7′ em; Judge {Sr.Dn). <31 CJM. Mysore, an
':–ippliea1"£ioi"'1'«:_under Order 41 Rule 27 had been filed by the
I appelia–nt.s therein seeking to adduce additional evidence. The
-T.é:a:¢;§ applieration was resisted by the respondent by filing detailed
“pobjeciions. The said applieaiion was also considered by the
@,
appellate Court while considering the appeal on main and by its
judgment and decree dt.i 1-12-2008 as referred to supiaiioi only
dismissed the appeal but also dismissed the “by
the appellants seeking production of additional evid_e11e’e.. 0
5. Being aggrieved by this j=Vudlgn1ei1t”.anci«d.e’C.1:eVel’pasVsed id.
in R.A.Nos.l79/2007 and 213/2oo’7lldei:ee1 i1l;”,i:.:.z.’2oos
first appellate Court the appella11’ts:therein’i..e_.;’-petitidnlersl in this
revision petition filed two,separate’e.seeoi1d& aplpeVa’is'”namely RSA
394/2009 {filed by the lirstll:l_’peti_tio11er] and RSA
367/2009 (filed -the petitio1’1e’r). The said
appeals we1’e..eo;1sid”e.;*ed’on.n1eri’i;sw–ahd the findings of the first
Appellate”–,Court’ aVsll’trilal__lCourt came to be confirmed and
when the appeals ‘were “taeliiiig dismissed. the learned counsel
…u.appeari11gl’i”or both”-Vtheappellants sought for time to vacate the
IV’g’pl’€:IR~lS€S,\Eil1d’«.I3’1’1alZ)l€ the appellants therein to file an affidavit
of ~undertal{i’hg,’gthe matter came to be adjourned and on the
_adjour3*1ed—Vidaiel namely on 94-2009 an affidavit sworn to by the
0″respeetivel”appellants tl’1erein, the revision petitioners herein was
l_”Ae.:i1e.el’i’11*”RsA 394/2009 and RSA 367/2009 respectively. The said
..l_4l”af?i’davits was taken on record and undertaking given by the
‘VVportion};oi’ the first “app’ella.te Courtis order to contend that there is
‘A’~._noA fi’n,di11gCA the operative portion of the judgment of the
V the apif;lica.tioii”i’iled for additional evidence and hence rejection of
“luv.a’aopliCEitioit'” for additional evidence is to be considered as an
*foi’déx”‘*iand if so construed. the petitioners would be justified in
invoiiiiig the revisional jurisdiction. He would also contend that
defined under Section 2(14} of the Code of Civil Procedure. To
buttress his argtiment, he would cite two decisions oi’.theDl~ion’ble
Supreme Court in the case Diwan Brothers Vs.
India, Bombay and others reported in (1
and Hero Vinoth Vs.
545. He would elaborate hisdis_ubm’i&ssio’ns
when an application for addit.ional*evidence” itflwoluld go to
the root; of the matter naiiiely, Court and
hence the petitioners are t.he revisional
jurisdiction of Court challenged the
judgement “pi:iséed,”:_.i”ri{_ -RA. No.i79/2007 and
R.A.No.2:Viv3/$t)l0′?;’VbyV :S€CQ1}d Appeals.
9. Fire’ hlwoulld 4Vdra’w.:_”..'”ihe attention of this Court to the
first as well as in its decree about the rejection of
TheVfoi”i’ovv”ing points arise for my consideration.
appeals the judgment and decree of the first
appellate Court. has merged and henoei»-tiae
revision petitioner cannot resagitate;’t’h’e–«’.fs–a;n’ie.V__’_
issue under guise of Revision.
(iii) in View of the order passed
Challenged in RSA»th’ev..VpresenVt_ itevilsiorgpetiifion
is not maintiainable. ‘
(iv) There are no grci-uVnd’s’ln*iacE’eV .()’Ll1;tv to condone the
delay.’ ‘ pp *
iv) “”” revision petitioners
all their avenues have now
petition to Wriggle out of the
nnderijalliiingpi given before this Court and
At./actéiordingly seeks for dismissal of the revision
” ‘ p+?:_i’:itjon with costs.
li”._ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties.
{i} Whether the order passed by the fiI’S1. Appellate Court
dated I L12-2008 suffers from any legal infirrnity’?
.. Procliictivoiiof additional evidence in
pari’ies to an appeal shall not be entitled to
prod.1,1’c,i’e_.additional evidence, Whether oral or
la} The Court from whose decree the appeal is
Explarlarion : A decree is preliminary when
proceedings have to be taken before the
be completely disposed of. It is final when is
adjudication Compleieiy disposes of _ u
may be partly preliminaiy a’i1<:'=;lparily «£i'i'1al:1'A ' "
[3] to (13) XXX
(14) "order" means the 'exprehssiori oflany
decision of a Civil' C_o~;.trt is nvo'E«.a decree;
ORDER XL}. RULp;.27". '
1 . Forrrzii of – €WIJ1at,llt:o V aeebiilpany
meffl°.¥aridi1lI_n " A
llll " ill ………… ..
2 Appellate Court :
doe’u..meni’ary. in the Appellate Court. But if»
preferred has refused to admit evidence which
ought. to have been admitted. or
and 213/200? {which admittedly has already reached finality in
R.S.A.i\ios. 3941/2009 and 367/2009 dated O1«04-2009}. in this
revision petition and rattempting, to obtain orders b«§i’..t1s.iri-gtrick
and stratagem which cannot be countenaneed ‘t.his:;Cotirtol’
is required to be dealt firmly. This condtict-1t}§’V:”‘th_c.VVVrevision T
petitioner clearly depicts that their or1l.y’i–nter1tion is to dragon
the proceedings and squat. the
present type of litigation uth.eir slol”c.’aii’e§<:l ingenuity
which not only requires to to be deprecated.
Hence in the fiU:l'CS:§V3:V cloiivsidered opinion that
each of the 'mulcted with exemplary
costs them to the respondent
within one 'failing which the respondents are
entitled to ex–e(iti.t.e t1iiise._o'1'dTeir by initiating appropriate execution
¢_pi'c)t:veedii1.lge.V T he"–rey_i_:3&iyon petition as wet! as LA. fiied for delay
"._V are "cl ismissed.
Sd./-*
JUDGE.