JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Both these revision applications arise from a common judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court in Misc Civil Appeals Nos. 30/99 and 31/99. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both the revision applications, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent.

3.At the outset, learned Advocate for the respondent has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision applications by referring to Chapter IV, Rule 20 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and submitted that in view of failure on the part of the petitioner to place on record copies of all the documents which are being referred to in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction in the impugned orders in relation to the findings arrived at based on such documents. Firstly, Rule 20 speaks about the obligation of the petitioner to file the copies of the material documents along with the petition and not regarding the powers of the Court to entertain the revision application or regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Assuming there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner in not producing the copies of documents that by itself would not prevent the Court from exercising its revisional powers if the Court finds that the lower Court has decided the matter in total disregard to and in violation of a rule of law or procedure or breach of provision of law affects the ultimate decision in the matter. Secondly, since the objection relates to non-filing of copies of documents based on which the findings in the judgments of the courts below are arrived at, in order to consider the objection itself, it would be necessary for this Court to peruse the judgments of the courts below and find out as to how far the findings based on such documents are relevant to arrive at the ultimate decision which the courts below have arrived at and in that view of the matter, the objection cannot be considered as preliminary objection and will have to be decided while considering the entire matter in revision applications. Thirdly, the failure on the part of the petitioner to file copies of the relevant documents and all the documents on which the petitioner desires to rely upon cannot, by itself, be sufficient to reject the revision applications summarily, but, it can be a factor against the petitioner while deciding the matter in the revision application. That apart, as already stated the said Rule does not, in any manner over-ride or limit jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4.The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that it is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of room No. 4 of a building by name "Roshan Manzil", situated at Panaji since 1969. One Govind Sadekar of M/s. G.D. Sadekar, a painting contractor was allowed to occupy the suit premises and carry on his business therefrom and since he took up new premises, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. However, on 21-3-98, when the petitioner's nephew opened the suit premises at about 11.20 hours, he found therein some of unknown furniture and other items. Around 2 p.m., some persons entered the premises, caught hold of him, assaulted him and forcibly took him to the police station. The petitioner thereafter lodged a complaint with the police on 21-3-1998. The petitioner had been paying rent to the landlady and also paying telephone bills in respect of two telephones in the suit premises in his name. The electricity charges for the suit premises are also paid by the petitioner. The police put a lock to the suit premises and after obtaining the ex-parte temporary injunction from the trial Court, the police unlocked the premises and the petitioner thereupon again took possess

Click Here to Read the rest of this document