JUDGMENT : Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for appellants and Sri B.N. Ananthanarayana, learned counsel for respondents have appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are under : The first defendant is the tenant of plaintiffs and whose tenancy stands determined and terminated in regard to property bearing Nos.5 and 7, 4th A Main road, Mutyalanagar, MES Road, Gokul, Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru-54 which is a property described in the schedule of the plaint. The first defendant had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- per month and the tenancy of the first defendant commenced from 1st of each month. The second defendant is the Secretary of the first defendant - Society. It is stated that the suit scheduled property belonged to one Late H.S. Anil Kumar and he was the absolute owner in possession of the property. Late H.S. Anil Kumar has leased the schedule property in favor of the first defendant - Society. The lease was for the purpose of running an Educational Institution and the tenancy commenced from 1st of each month. The first defendant - Society had even filed a suit in O.S.No.5513/1998 against Late H.S. Anil Kumar seeking a decree of permanent injunction alleging that he had taken steps to dispossess the first defendant - Society by force. The said suit came to be dismissed on 06.03.1999 on account of death of H.S. Anil Kumar. It is stated that H.S. Anil Kumar died bachelor intestate on 17.08.1998. The first plaintiff is the mother and second plaintiff is elder brother of Late H.S. Anil Kumar. Plaintiffs being class-1 heir of deceased H.S. Anil Kumar, became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The Khata of the suit schedule property stands in the name of second plaintiff. The first defendant - Society was called upon to effect payment of rents which became due from 01.08.1998. Plaintiffs issued legal notice on 26.03.2001 demanding arrears of rent. The first defendant - Society failed to effect payment of arrears of rent become due. The Khata of the suit schedule property stands in the name of second plaintiff. The first defendant - Society was called upon to effect payment of rents which became due from 01.08.1998. Plaintiffs issued legal notice on 26.03.2001 demanding arrears of rent. The first defendant - Society failed to effect payment of arrears of rent become due. Therefore, plaintiffs were constrained to initiate action against the first defendant - Society before the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru City seeking eviction of defendants under Section 2(1)(a) of the KRC Act, 1961 in HRC No.739/2001. It is stated that the schedule property being non-residential in nature and the measurement being more than 14 Sq. mts and the construction of the building not being more than 15 years. In view of Section 70 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the proceedings in HRC No.739/2001 came to be abated. It is averred that defendants are due rents from 01.08.1998 onwards and a sum of Rs.51,000/- has become due towards arrears of rent calculated up to 31.10.2002. It is also stated that rents exceeding 3 years have become time barred, the plaintiffs sought recovery of sum Rs.36,000/- only being the arrears of rent for a period of 36 months calculated up to 31.10.2002. The first defendant - Society being a tenant from month to month in respect of suit schedule property and the tenancy came to be determined and terminated by means of legal notice dated 06.09.2002 with effect from the expiry of 31st day of October 2002. The defendants were called upon to quit and deliver back the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Despite the issue of legal notice, the defendants have not vacated the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiffs have filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property. The defendants are liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the schedule property. Plaintiffs also sought for an enquiry be held with regard to the mesne profits. Hence, plaintiffs have filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property. The defendants are liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the schedule property. Plaintiffs also sought for an enquiry be held with regard to the mesne profits. It is further contended that the cause of action for the suit arose on and subsequent to 01.11.1999 from when the rents became due on and subsequent to expiry of the day of 31st day of October 2002 when the tenancy of the defendant stands duly determined and terminated and on subsequent to 01.11.2002 from when the defendants have been in wrongful use and occupation of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs sought the aid of the Court for ejectment. 5. After service of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel filed the written statement. They denied the plaint averments and stated that plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit. They denied the jural relationship and as such they sought for the dismissal of the suit. Defendants sought to urge that late H.S. Anil Kumar and second defendant were living as husband and wife since 1995 in the property in question. It is stated that the property is the self acquired property of late H.S. Anil Kumar and he was absolute owner of the property. Plaintiffs being mother and brother of Late H.S. Anil Kumar, were not happy with the relationship and therefore, they wanted Late H.S. Anil Kumar to discontinue his relationship with second defendant. It is stated that Late H.S. Anil Kumar and the second defendant started a school under the name and style of M/s. Hemanth Education Society in which the second defendant was the Secretary and Late H.S. Anil Kumar was the President. Late H.S. Anil Kumar had entered into a rental agreement with the second defendant only for collateral purpose which was agreed not to be acted upon. It is averred that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of Late H. S. Anil Kumar. And he died testate as he has executed a Will on 21.12.1987 bequeathing a suit schedule property in favor of his minor son Master Hemanth. It is admitted that the first defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.5513/1998. against Late H. S. Anil Kumar for injunction. The second defendant denied that she had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. It is admitted that the first defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.5513/1998. against Late H. S. Anil Kumar for injunction. The second defendant denied that she had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. She has stated that the second plaintiff got khata transferred in his name clandestinely. For the legal notice a suitable reply was given on 28.04.2001. The second defendant produced sixteen documents. Among other ground, she prayed for the dismissal of the suit with cost. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the landlords of the premises wherein the defendants are in possession? 2. Whether the defendants are tenants in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- apart from electricity & water charges? 3. Whether the defendants are in arrears of rent from 1.8.1995 onwards? 4. Whether the termination of tenancy is in accordance with law? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the arrears of rent and possession? 6. To what order and relief, the parties are entitled to? Plaintiff No.2 got examined himself as a General Power of Attorney as PW.1 and got produced 27 documents and which are at Exs.P.1 to P.27. Defendant No.2 got herself examined as DW.1 and no documents were got marked on her side. Exs.P.25 to P.27 were marked in confrontation in DW.1. On the trial of the action, the suit came to be decreed with costs. It is this judgment and decree which is challenged before this Court under Section 96 of CPC. 7. Learned counsel Sri M. Shivaprakash submits that the trial Court could not have been decided the way it was. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is contrary to facts, law and evidence on record. Next, he submitted that the trial Court has erred in considering that the defendants are tenants and that plaintiffs are the owners with respect of the suit schedule property. A further submission was made that the trial Court has grossly erred in interpreting the definition of landlord and the tenant. It is submitted that the trial Court seriously erred in concluding that the defendant No.2 is not the wife of the Late H.S. Anil Kumar. A further submission was made that the trial Court has grossly erred in interpreting the definition of landlord and the tenant. It is submitted that the trial Court seriously erred in concluding that the defendant No.2 is not the wife of the Late H.S. Anil Kumar. He sought to urge that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that Late H.S. Anil Kumar died testate as he has executed a Will on 21.12.1987 in favor of the minor child Hemanth Kumar. Learned counsel further submitted that defendants produced as many as 16 documents but the trial Court the trial Court did not comply with Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC. Counsel vehemently urged that the trial Court has failed to comply with the mandatory provision of CPC. Lastly, he submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is erroneous, capricious, perverse and opposed to law and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel Sri B.N. Ananthanarayana justified the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Next, he submitted that after the death of H. S. Anil Kumar, the plaintiffs being the class-1 heir have succeeded to the property. Therefore, they are the absolute owner of the property. A further submission was made that the defendants are the tenants and this fact was admitted by the second defendant in the previous suit which was filed for the relief of injunction in O.S.No.5513/1998. Therefore, the defendants are estopped from contending that there is no jural relationship of land lord and tenant. Counsel sought to urge that the plaintiffs have complied with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and duly determined and terminated the tenancy. It is further submitted that the trial Court is justified in concluding that no documents were produced by the defendants. He submitted that the trial Court in extenso considered the material on record and justified in passing the order for eviction. Lastly, he sought to sustain the judgment and decree of the trial Court as being well merited, fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard the contentions urged on behalf parties and perused the records with care. The following points would arise for consideration : 1. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard the contentions urged on behalf parties and perused the records with care. The following points would arise for consideration : 1. Whether the trial Court did comply with Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of trial Court require interference by this Court? The facts have been sufficiently stated. The litigation relates to the ejectment of defendants from the plaint schedule property. I now turn to the main ground on which this appeal has been pressed; that is, whether the duty imposed by the statute was strictly adhered to by the trial court? The suit was instituted 11.11.2002. Defendant No.2 filed the written statement along with list of documents on 08.04.2003. Further, defendant No.2 filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 22.11.2003. On 22.11.2003, the trial Court ordered as under: (Legible portion is extracted as under) “Affidavit is of Smt. Sheela filed copy given treated as examination-in-chief of DW-1. Marked Nil. Marking of documents by 27.11.2003”. The proceedings continued at intervals. On 11.03.2004 with the permission of the Court, counsel for defendant No.2 further chief examined DW-1. Let me set out a few extracts from defendant’s further examination-in-chief. Further examination-in-chief by the counsel for defendant with permission - dated 11.03.2004. My husband Anil Kumar had executed a Will and the said Will is produced in HRC case. I have obtained certified copy of it as per Ex D-1. (Advocate for plaintiff objects to mark the said Will. Marking of the Will is quite different from proving of the Will. Hence, objection is over ruled). (Advocate for defendant wants to get mark the certified copies of certain documents, which had produced in HRC case and wants them to be marked. The Advocate for plaintiff opposes the same on ground that the HRC case is not pending and the same is already disposed of. The said fact is not disputed by Advocate for defendant. In this background, the Advocate for defendant is not permitted to produce secondary evidence when the primary evidence is available. The defendant may produce the said document by taking back from appropriate Court). Marked Ex. D-2 to Ex. D-11 by consent. (as in O.S. No.6457/2002 and not in this case.) On 11.03.2004, the trial Court ordered as under. In this background, the Advocate for defendant is not permitted to produce secondary evidence when the primary evidence is available. The defendant may produce the said document by taking back from appropriate Court). Marked Ex. D-2 to Ex. D-11 by consent. (as in O.S. No.6457/2002 and not in this case.) On 11.03.2004, the trial Court ordered as under. “Advocate for defendant files I.A. u/o 18 Rule 17 seeking permission to tender DW-1 for cross-examination. Advocate for plaintiff states no objection. Hence I.A. is allowed on condition that DW-1 shall tender herself for cross examination today. DW-1 was cross examined in full. Marked as per deposition. Advocate for defendant closed his side. Matter stands posted for arguments by 02.06.2004”. The hearing apparently began on 02.06.2004 and the proceedings continued at intervals. Ultimately, the judgment was delivered on 22.12.2005. The trial Court decreed the suit. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court did not consider the documents filed by defendant No.2 for the reason that the documents described, as exhibits in the affidavit evidence are not endorsed by the Court under Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC as exhibits. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for defendants was critical in his submission regarding non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. A very detailed and effective argument was put forth before this Court by counsel for defendants regarding non- endorsement of documents by the trial Court. In view of the specific submission regarding non-compliance of mandatory provision of Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC, it would be relevant to refer to Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC which reads as under; "ORDER 13 RULE 4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. - (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the Suit the following particulars, namely: — (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the document, (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge." To better appreciate the contention regarding the non-compliance of 13 Rule 4 of CPC, it would be relevant to refer to two decisions as under. 1. AIR 1916 P C 44 = (1916) ILR 38 ALL 627 - MIRZA SADIK HUSSAIN KHAN vs. NAWAB SAIYED HASHIM ALI KHAN AND OTHERS. 2. AIR 1966 AP 184 - KOLLI ERANNA AND ORS. vs. BELLAMKONDA THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS. The law on the subject has been decided by the Pricy Council as early as in the 1916, in Mirza Sadik Hussain Khan Vs Nawab Saiyed Hashim Ali Khan and others (AIR 1916 PC 44). The Privy Council having referred to Order 13 Rule 4 CPC felt bound to criticize, adversely the practice followed by the trial Court in not complying with the said provision of law observing that the Presiding Judge shall endorse with his own hand a statement that it (i.e., a document proved or admitted in evidence) was proved against or admitted by the person against whom it was used. That course was in many instances not followed resulted in embarrassing and perplexing controversies on the hearing of the appeals and hence the further observation that there is no possible excuse for the neglect of the duty imposed by the statute. In KOLLI ERANNA AND ORS. vs. BELLAMKONDA THIMMAIAH AND ORS., reported in AIR 1966 AP 184 . It has been held as follows:- "Order 13, Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code prescribes that there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit, the number and title of the suit, the name of the person producing the document, the date on which it was produced and a statement of its having been so admitted. The endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge." A document lacking the last requirement cannot be said to be admitted in evidence. The endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge." A document lacking the last requirement cannot be said to be admitted in evidence. Having noticed the aforesaid decisions and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case, evidently defendant no 2 produced 16 documents and the order of the trial Court also discloses that exhibits were marked with consent. Curiously, the same were not endorsed by the presiding judge. Under Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC, it is provided that a Presiding Judge shall endorse with his own hand a statement that it (i.e., a document proved or admitted in evidence) was proved against or admitted by the person against whom it was used. It is needless to say that the judge should endorse on the very document stating that the document has been admitted in evidence and initial it. The rule as to endorsement of documents admitted in evidence must strictly followed. Order 13, Rule 4(1) of the CPC prescribes that there shall be an endorsement on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit, the number and title of the suit, the name of the person producing the document, the date on which it was produced and a statement of its having been so admitted. The endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge. In the present case, though the trial Court marked the documents with consent and the same is clear from the deposition and the order sheet dated 11.03.2004. However, it is curious to note that the documents admitted in evidence were not endorsed in terms of Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC. Considering the fact that the documents were admitted and were marked with consent, the trial Court ought to have endorsed the same and allowed to be relied upon. The trial Court as is apparent from the proceedings did not make the endorsement as contemplated by order 13 Rule 4 of CPC. The observation of the Privy Council in Mirza’s case that there is no possible excuse for the neglect of duty imposed by the statute amply applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As already stated above, the trial Court marked the documents with consent. But in the absence of endorsement the trial Court refused to look into the documents and ultimately concluded that no documents are produced by the defendants. As already stated above, the trial Court marked the documents with consent. But in the absence of endorsement the trial Court refused to look into the documents and ultimately concluded that no documents are produced by the defendants. I think that the trial Court has a statutory duty to comply the mandatory provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC. I have no hesitation in saying that the documents tendered and admitted in evidence in trial court not properly endorsed, not signed by trial judge, perplexing to appellate court to decide if document was admitted or not. It is perhaps well to observe that mandatory provision was not apparently adhered to by the trial Court. The breach of statutory duty has occasioned in grave miscarriage of justice. The outcome of these facts and considerations which I have stated is that I have grave doubt as to whether the judgement and decree of the trial Court can be supported. The suit is one for ejectment. The trial Court has dealt with the matter which were not related to the grounds of eviction. As already noted above the trial Court did not adhered to the mandatory provisions of the CPC. By doing so, it must be said that the trial Court did not conduct the trial in accordance with law and the procedure adopted suffered from serious infirmity. The case requires remand to trial court for fresh trial. The judgment and decree of the trial court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly it is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial with a direction to endorse documents under Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC and mark them as exhibits subject to any objections by plaintiffs. Parties are represented through their respective counsel. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendants are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.6.2021. Taking into consideration of the prolonged litigation, the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible i.e., within 1 year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties to bear their own costs. Gentle Reminder While dealing with the cases which generally come from the trial Courts, it is observed in certain cases that the order sheets are written by hand by presiding officers. Parties to bear their own costs. Gentle Reminder While dealing with the cases which generally come from the trial Courts, it is observed in certain cases that the order sheets are written by hand by presiding officers. There is nothing like recording of cases by hand as it reflects the true home work/observations of the Judges/Officers. But in certain cases, it is observed that the script written by hand will be not legible. This puts the Higher Courts in an embarrassing situation if one is not in a position to read and understand the matter. This may lead to wrong direction of the Higher Court/s in the sense that the trial court has meant one meaning/conclusion of the case and the Higher Courts interpret the same in a different way. Therefore, the possibility of preparing all proceedings of the Courts including typing of order sheets etc., may be done in Computers as these days almost every Court in the state, I/we believe, have been provided with Computers. In the present case, I have come across daily order sheets written in hand which are not legible and the language could not be deciphered at the High Court level. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that for preparing daily order sheets, it will be only appropriate /is desirable that the proceedings are typed preferably in Computer to avoid such embarrassing situation. Hence, the need for generating this note.