Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 369 (KAR)

Sneha Enterprises v. Ramkumar Marda

2001-04-18

CHIDANANDA ULLAL

body2001
ORDER Chidananda Ullal, J.—This review petition is filed on twin grounds, firstly, that a sketch describing the same as proposed plan was produced and marked as Ex.P- 15 before the trial Court and whereas this Court had taken that the rough sketch at Page-50 (not at page-30 as contended in the Review Petition herein) of the paper book was a hand sketch one produced before the trial Court at the time of argument of the case, and secondly, on the ground that this Court had observed at Pages-54 and 67 in the Order herein sought for to be reviewed, that in the absence of the evidence with regard to the dimensional need vis-a-vis the size or volume of the business in bakery business and further more in the absence of the Project Report outlining the total investment in the business by the landlord-firm, it could not be said that partial eviction of the tenant at Shop No. 5 is in any way erroneous, when PW1 - Petitioner herein in his evidence, in fact, had stated that for starting the business he required Rs. 2 lakhs and he has got the funds. 2. In consideration of the Review petition filed by the Petitioner, I should state that, Ex.P- 15, the proposed plan was not adverted to during the course of the arguments and further more when the paper book filed in the case the sketch placed at Page-50 thereof had not been shown as Ex.P- 15 and further that in the index to the paper book at Sl. No. 3 thereof, it has been described as 'sketch proposed plan'. 3. Added to it, in the decision reported in 1974 (1) Kar LJ 226 (Chandrashekarappa Virupaksha Appaji Vs. SSM Swami), listed at Sl. No. 14 of the list of decisions upon which reliance was placed on behalf of the Petitioner was on the point that the documents even when not marked as exhibits, can be looked into. 3. Added to it, in the decision reported in 1974 (1) Kar LJ 226 (Chandrashekarappa Virupaksha Appaji Vs. SSM Swami), listed at Sl. No. 14 of the list of decisions upon which reliance was placed on behalf of the Petitioner was on the point that the documents even when not marked as exhibits, can be looked into. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the same was cited by the learned Senior Counsel in reply to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in another House Rent Revision Petition i.e., House Rent Revision Petition 662 of 1998, that xerox copy of the document though marked in the cross examination of the witness of the other side, the same was not admissible in evidence as such the said evidence cannot be looked into by this Court. In this connection, I may say that, during the course of arguments in that regard there was some lapses in presentation of the case from the side of the Petitioner. 4. Let apart, in the evidence of the Petitioner examined as PW1 in the trial Court though claimed Ex.P- 15 to be the sketch of the proposed plan, admittedly stated that the same was prepared by his Vendors and that he was not knowing the Engineers who had prepared the same. 5. Now I come to the second part. No doubt, the Petitioner-PW1 in his evidence did speak about the requirement of the business, it was stated by him in his evidence that he required Rs. 2 lakhs for his business and he has got such funds with him. But this evidence, as I see, has got no foundation in the pleadings in the eviction petition. At para-7 of the Eviction petition all that the Petitioner has pleaded is that he has got required fund. It is relevant to observe here that he did not plead in the eviction petition as to what was his actual business requirement in terms of money. That apart, the original House Rent Revision Petition was dismissed for more than one reason. 6. I feel it appropriate to state in this context that the original eviction petitions were filed by the Petitioner without requisite pleadings, probably with high and fond hope that un-employment and training certificate in Baking obtained by him, marked at Ex.P- 11, would automatically qualify him to obtain eviction orders in these cases. 6. I feel it appropriate to state in this context that the original eviction petitions were filed by the Petitioner without requisite pleadings, probably with high and fond hope that un-employment and training certificate in Baking obtained by him, marked at Ex.P- 11, would automatically qualify him to obtain eviction orders in these cases. 7. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the instant review petition. It is high time that the Petitioner be satisfied and happy that he had justice both in the hands of the trial Court and this Court, for he had larger part of the promises despite there being insufficient pleadings in the original petition/petitions. All the more in passing the order sought to be reviewed, this Court only confirmed the order of the trial Court in the original eviction petitions and nothing beyond it. 8. Review Petition stands rejected.