IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 231 OF 2019 (SC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAMESH K S/O P KEMPAIAH, NO.151/2, R.T.STREET, BALEPET, BANGALORE - 560 053 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT KUMARI INDIRA W/O T. NARAYAN, R/AT 172/A, 10TH CROSS, Digitally signed by IV MAIN, BAPUJI NAGAR, SHARADAVANI B MYSORE ROAD, Location: High BANGALORE-560 026 Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.173/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner, challenging the validity of the Order dated 05.01.2019 passed in S.C.No.173/2013 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore, SCCH-18.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1 A suit for recovery of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was filed by the petitioner contending that he has vacated the suit property on 09.12.2012 and he was in occupation of the same from 02.10.2011 on rental basis at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month at the first instance and after 1 year Rs.9,450/-.

4. The defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit property was not kept in tidy condition and therefore he had to incur expenses for whitewash of the premises after the petitioner vacated the premises and she vacated on 09.12.2012 and for the month of November and December, he was in due towards the arrears of rent and therefore sought for not only dismissal of the suit but also award the counter claim towards the whitewash and colour wash expenses.

5. Suit on contest, came to be dismissed. So also the counter claim was rejected. Landlord did not choose to appeal against the rejection of the claim whereas petitioner being the plaintiff has filed the present revision on the following grounds:

(cid:1) The Judgement & Decree in question is frivolous, vexatious and the same is liable to be set-aside;

(cid:1) The Court below failed to appreciate the Evidence and the Documents available on record in accordance with law;

(cid:1) The Trial Court below totally failed to note that, the alleged Agreement furnished was not taken on record;

(cid:1) Despite the same, the Trial Court proceeded to pass Judgement based on the contents of the said Agreement i.e. Ex.D-1.;

(cid:1) The Trial Court grossly failed appreciate the Document furnished and marked at Ex.P-1 to P-3;

(cid:1) The Court below also failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had discharged all the duties and liabilities till the date of vacating the premises in question;

(cid:1) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in accordance with law in toto;

(cid:1) Even otherwise, the Suit of the Petitioner ought to have been Decreed as prayed for viewed from any angle;

(cid:1) The Petitioner reserves many other contentions to be canvassed at the time of Final Hearing:

(cid:1) The Petitioner has not filed any other proceeding/s either on the file of the Hon'ble Court or elsewhere based on the facts pleaded herein;

(cid:1) The Revision is filed accompanied with Limitation Application;

(cid:1)

The Claim made is Rs. 25,3345/-. The Suit is valued accordingly for the purpose of Court Fee & Jurisdiction. Hence, Fixed Court of Rs.20/- Is herewith furnished as contemplated under Sch. II Art.11(q)(iii) of K.C.F. & S.V.

Act 1958.

6. Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision