Karnataka High Court
Mr. K N Munawar Pasha vs Mr. S N Patil on 5 April, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1290/2003
BETWEEN:
Mr. K.N.Munawar Pasha,
S/o Mohammed Naseeruddin,
Aged about 47 years,
No.91, Bazaar Street,
Neelasandra,
Bangalore-47. ...Appellant
(By Sri.S.Z.A. Khureshi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr. S.N.Patil,
S/o Mr.N.S.Patil,
Aged about 62 years,
Executive Engineer,
Vigilance and Quality Control Division,
III Floor, Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore-9.
2. Bangalore Water Supply
& Sewerage Board,
Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore-09
Represented by its Chairman ...Respondents
(By Sri.S.N.Keshava Murthy, Advocate for R-1;
R-2 served)
This RFA is filed U/s 96 of CPC against the
judgment and decree dated 24.07.2003 passed in
2
O.S.No.6263/96 on the file of the VIII addl. city civil &
sessions judge, Bangalore, CCH No.15, dismissing the
suit for damages.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful plaintiff is assailing the judgment and decree passed by the VIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.6263/1996 dated 24.7.2003 whereunder the suit for damages came to be dismissed.
2. Heard Sri.S.Z.A.Khureshi, learned Counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.S.N.Keshavamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages against the defendants contending interalia that he is a sportsman and is working as a Junior Assistant in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board' for brevity) and he is a qualified Coach. It was contended that plaintiff being 3 a Sports Officer and a Coach, he was entitled to participate in the tournaments and coach the teams. For the period 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 he was not paid the salary and only on a direction issued by this Court in W.P.31101/1994 on 28.03.1996 said salary was paid. During the period for which he was not paid the salary, he and his family members had to eke out livelihood on borrowed money by paying huge interest and intentionally for two years the salary was not paid and he has suffered both financially and mentally and as such, he was entitled for damages from the defendants together with interest at 21% p.a. Defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was contended that he was entrusted with important work of maintaining ledger accounts of consumers and without permission he had remained continuously absent for 114 days i.e., from 1.12.1993 to 24.03.1994. He had not taken prior permission of the Board for participating in the tournament or to give coaching and there is no provision in Karnataka Civil Service Rules and the 4 G.Os. issued thereunder. The claim of plaintiff that he had suffered mentally and financially and had lived during the said period on borrowed money came to be denied. Taking into consideration that plaintiff is an employee of the Board, the direction issued for payment of salary by this Court was implemented and it was not pursued by taking a lenient view and there was no malafide intention in not settling the salary of the plaintiff. As per the extant Rules, G.Os., and Circulars governing the issue plaintiff is not entitled for any amount and as such, they sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, after framing the issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after analysing the evidence both oral and documentary tendered by the parties, by its judgment and decree dated 24.07.2003 dismissed the suit and same is assailed in the present appeal.
4. It is the contention of Sri.Khureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - plaintiff that trial court has erred in not appreciating and analyzing the evidence tendered by the plaintiff in its proper 5 perspective and contends that it has misdirected itself in proceeding to adjudicate altogether a different issue as to whether the appellant has Diploma in Sports and whether appellant had submitted an application to the Board seeking permission to participate in the Sports event for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 and held the two issues in favour of the defendants erroneously. He would also contend that the issues formulated by the trial court are erroneous and trial court was not justified in examining as to whether the Sports events attended by the appellant - plaintiff from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 was equal to a National event or not, as such, he contends that judgment and decree passed by the trial court is erroneous. He would also contend that trial court committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff had not applied for leave nor has taken permission from respondent No.2 to attend the Sports events and had erred in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff had remained absent from duty from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994, which finding is contrary to evidence available on record. He would elaborate his 6 submission and contend that it was specific case of plaintiff that withholding of his salary by the first respondent for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 inspite of sanction of the said salary by the Board, had resulted in causing loss and damages to the appellant which was the only issue required to be considered and adjudicated by the trial court and non framing of said specific issue has resulted in erroneous judgment and decree being passed by the trial court and as such liable to be set aside. He would also submit that plaintiff had tendered documentary evidence to establish that he had borrowed money, raised finances during the period 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 to meet the expenses of his family, which was on account of non-payment of salary for the said period and these documents came to be held by the trial court as created documents which finding is erroneous and particularly in the absence of any rebuttal evidence tendered by the defendants same ought to have been accepted. He would also contend that no reason has been assigned by the trial court as to why these documents are being disbelieved. He 7 would further contend that trial court has not properly scrutinized the evidence of DW-1 and the documents produced by the respective parties in their evidence and finding of the trial Court that non-issuance of notice under Section 126 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act is fatal to the suit is an erroneous finding without taking into consideration the legal notice issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P2. On these grounds he contends that judgment and decree passed by trial court be set aside and appeal be allowed by decreeing the suit, as prayed for.
5. Per contra, Sri.S.N.Keshavamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for defendants/respondents would support the judgment and decree passed by trial court and contends that, Assistant Executive Engineer, who had sanctioned leave to plaintiff had no authority to sanction the same and even otherwise, as per the extant Rules, plaintiff was not entitled for payment of salary for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 and despite said fact as a good will gesture, payment has been made to plaintiff without pursuing the legal remedies available 8 to the defendants and as such, plaintiff cannot now contend that he is entitled for damages. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that, undisputedly notice in question as per Ex.P2 is not issued to the Board, but to the first defendant in his personal capacity and as such suit filed against Board was hit by Section 126 of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act and trial court was fully justified in accepting the plea of the defendants and as such, he contends that judgment and decree passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmities whatsoever calling for interference. He would further contend that even on facts plaintiff has not established that any financial loss having been caused to him and as such, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. He would also submit that the claim of the plaintiff for award of damages cannot be granted inasmuch as, the issue regarding sanction of leave was under consideration by the authorities based on the recommendations made by the officers at different levels and as such, these are acts done or undertaken in good faith and protected 9 under the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act and as such, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of damages. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal and prays for affirming the judgment and decree passed by trial court.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the judgment and decree passed by trial court as also the records secured from the trial court, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration:
a) Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit O.S.No.6263/1996 and not decreeing the suit for damages for ` 60,000/-?
Or Whether there has been improper appreciation of the evidence by the trial court?
Or Whether there is non-appreciation of material evidence available on record and if so, whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires to be reversed or to be affirmed?
2) What order?
10FACTUAL MATRIX:
7. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages claiming ` 60,000/- from defendants contending interalia that he was working as a Junior Assistant in second defendant
- Board and he is a Sportsman representing All India Inter-University Tournaments and also a State player in Football and had served the second defendant - Board for about 20 years; he is a qualified coach in the game of Football having completed Diploma in Football Coaching from Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports, South Centre at Bangalore, was on deputation by the second defendant with the permission of the second defendant - a Society called 'BWSSB Kreeda Samsthe' was formed in the year 1979-80 for the promotion of sports activities in the Board; amongst other pleas put forward in the suit, it was contended that, his salary for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 was not paid by the defendants despite numerous representations and due to withholding of said salary, he and his family members were driven to miserable condition and to eke out their livelihood, they 11 had to borrow money from money lenders on payment of huge interest; without any valid reasons, salary for the said period was withheld till the High Court issued a direction in W.P.No.31101/1994 by order dated 28.3.1996; defendants forced plaintiff to approach the court of law to get his legitimate salary for the above said period and plaintiff had spent about `7,000/- towards lawyer's professional fee; plaintiff has paid interest on the borrowings to the extent of `1,00,000/-, but restricted the claim to ` 60,000/- only. Though salary was sanctioned in 1994, it was paid only on 29.4.1996; defendants have been harassing plaintiff repeatedly and intentionally; his salary for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 was withheld without any valid reasons and as such defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
8. On service of suit summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was contended that plaintiff was holding various postings in the second defendant - Board; plaintiff remained absent from duty 12 from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 continuously for a period of 114 days and he had not discharged his duty allotted to him assigning the reason that he was rendering his services as a coach in football for Karnataka Women's Football Association Team and BWSSB Kreeda Samsthe teams for participating in league tournaments and prior permission was not taken from the Board either for participating in the tournament or for extending coaching to the teams; hence, plaintiff's claim for treating the absence of 114 days as 'on duty' cannot be accepted, as there is no provision in the K.C.S.Rules which has been made applicable to the employees of the Board; when the plaintiff's claim for payment of the salary for the said period was under consideration, he had approached this Court and as such, action was not taken due to pendency of dispute and on direction issued by the Court, defendants have paid the salary on 20.4.1996; Board did not pursue the matter after direction was issued by the High Court and salary was paid to plaintiff since he was an employee of the Board and they took lenient view and paid the salary; all other 13 averments made in the plaint came to be denied in toto and plaintiff was put to strict proof of the averments made therein; suit in question is not maintainable for issuance of valid legal notice; additional written statement was also filed denying the qualification of the plaintiff and the alleged BWSSB Kreeda Samsthe was denied to be a part of Board and it was specifically contended that plaintiff had not taken prior permission of the Board either for participating in the tournament or to give coaching to the aforesaid team or to Karnataka Women's Football Association, as such defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay damages of ` 60,000/-?
2. What order?
10. Plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and produced 50 documents by getting it marked as Exs.P-1 to P-50; first defendant got himself examined as DW-1 14 and produced 10 documents by getting it marked as Exs.D-1 to D-10. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, trial court by its judgment and decree dated 24.7.2003 dismissed the suit, which is now assailed in the present appeal.
FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIAL COURT:
11. On appreciation of entire evidence, trial Court found that no document was placed by the plaintiff before it to show that he had applied for permission; the Sports event, which plaintiff attended from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 was not equal to a National event and without obtaining permission from the competent authority to attend the alleged sports event, plaintiff did not attend the office from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994; his request to recognize him as a Sports Officer by the Board had been turned down; claim of the plaintiff that event, which took place during the period 1993-94 was equal to a national event, is riddled with inconsistency and plaintiff's evidence cannot be relied upon; plaintiff himself had committed default in not 15 taking permission from the Board for attending the alleged sports event for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994; documents produced by the plaintiff are self- created documents. Plaintiff had issued notice to first defendant in his individual capacity and as such, without issuing mandatory notice to the Board, plaintiff cannot maintain the suit; documents produced by the defendants would substantiate their defence for withholding the salary of the plaintiff from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 being in accordance with the K.C.S.Rs. and no amount has been spent by the plaintiff on account of withholding of the salary by the defendants. On these grounds as discussed in its judgment and decree passed by the trial court, suit came to be dismissed. RE: POINT NO.1:
12. Plaintiff's claim in the suit was for damages of ` 60,000/- on account of alleged non-payment of salary for the period of 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994.
Nowhere in the plaint, it has specified or narrated or stated or amplified the breakup of the figures based on 16 which he was claiming damages. His claim for damages of ` 60,000/- against the defendants is for the reason that defendants had unauthorisedly and without any justifiable cause or reason had withheld his salary for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994. It was the specific case of the plaintiff before the trial court that he was working as a Junior Assistant at an undisputed point of time i.e., during December 1993 and in the first week of December 1993, he had sought permission to attend to the sports event viz., League Football Tournament and for coaching the teams and as such, he did not attend the duty between 1.12.1993 and 31.3.1994 and on account of withholding of his salary, his family was in penury, they had to face financial difficulties and to eke out their livelihood, he had to borrow amounts from money lenders and as such, amount expended by the plaintiff, though was to the tune of `1,00,000/-, claim against defendants was restricted to ` 60,000/- only.
13. The claim of plaintiff is based on Rule 10 of the K.C.S.Rules. The extract of the said Rules has been 17 produced by the plaintiff himself, which came to be marked as Ex.P-40, namely Government Order dated 21.7.1986. Said order enables the Board to grant special casual leave to an employee. Said leave is granted to State Government servants for a period not exceeding 30 days in a calendar year for -
a) Participating in sporting events of national or international importance;
b) Participating in mountaineering expeditions;
c) Attending coaching or training courses conducted at the National Institute of Sports, Patiala or under the Rajkumari Amrit Kaur Coaching Scheme or similar All India Coaching or Training schemes.
Special casual leave for a period not exceeding 15 days in a calendar year is also granted to State Government servants who represent a team formed for Government employees in respect of sporting events league/other tournaments conducted or recognized by the State Sporting Associations.
18Keeping these policy guidelines, which is provided in the resolution of National Sports Policy, order dated 21.7.1986 Ex.P-40 came to be issued by the State Government. Defendants also do not dispute that the said order is made applicable to its employees mutatis mutandis. Based on this order, plaintiff sought for casual leave being sanctioned to him for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994. Though it was incumbent upon plaintiff himself to produce the alleged representation said to have been submitted, he did not produce the same for reasons best known. Thus, vital document, which is the basis for plaintiff's claim, has been withheld. Even otherwise, there is a reference to this document in Ex.D-6, which is an internal communication from the Executive Engineer to his superior viz., Superintending Engineer dated 30.12.1993. Perusal of Ex.D-6 would indicate that, plaintiff's claim for sanctioning the leave was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer as seen from the recommendation made therein. The representation submitted by plaintiff for 19 sanction of leave was bereft of material facts. As to whether plaintiff's claim for sanction of leave would come within four corners of the order relied upon by the plaintiff dated 21.7.1986 - Ex.P-40 itself was doubtful. In other words, plaintiff himself was in doubt as to whether his claim would fall under Rule-10 of K.C.S.Rules. Plaintiff did not furnish details regarding details of tournament he was attending to, nature of tournament that was taking place, etc.,. There was no supporting letter issued by the Organizers of the event issued in this behalf appended to his representation dated 7.12.1993 except annexing fixtures of the match. The details as required to be furnished were not furnished by the plaintiff. It is in this background as per Ex.D-6, communication has been sent seeking clarification from the office of the Superintendent Engineer by the Executive Engineer as evidenced from Ex.D-6. The representation of the plaintiff along with the clarification sought for by the Executive Engineer was under consideration during which point of time, plaintiff approached this Court by filing a writ petition 20 in W.P.No.31101/1994. Said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 28.3.1996 whereunder a direction was given by this Court to the Board to release salary due to the petitioner for the period from 1.12.1993 and 31.3.1994. A perusal of the said order, which has been produced before the trial Court and marked as Ex.P-43 would indicate that no leave of the said court was sought for initiating separate civil proceedings seeking for damages. Even otherwise, right of the plaintiff being available under common law and same having been exercised by the plaintiff by filing the suit in question, no fault can be laid at the doors of the plaintiff that on account of non-obtaining of leave by the writ court, he would be estopped from filing the suit. Said contention cannot be accepted and at this juncture itself, it is brushed aside.
14. Having ignited the civil law seeking for payment of damages, burden was cast on the plaintiff to establish the following facts;
21
1) He had applied for leave for the period from 1.12.1993 and 31.3.1994;
2) It was duly sanctioned by the competent authority;
3) There was improper withholding of the salary for the said period;
4) On account of withholding of the said salary for the said period, he had taken reasonable steps as expected of a prudent person to mitigate losses that he may suffer;
5) After having taken such steps, he was forced to spend amounts and for having spent the amounts, proof has been placed to accept such plea.
15. In the background of these points, facts on hand is to be examined. At the first instance it is to be noticed that plaintiff has utterly and miserably failed to demonstrate before the trial court that he had submitted an application for sanction of leave prior to 1.12.1993 and after being sanctioned, he had proceeded to attend the tournaments/coaching camps. The plea 22 raised in the plaint is as vague as vagueness could be. The oral evidence tendered by the plaintiff is replica of the plaint and he has relied very heavily on two documents to substantiate his claim viz., order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31101/1994 dated 28.3.1996 Ex.P-43 and office order dated 10.8.1994 marked as Ex.P-49 and the extract of the extant rules viz., K.C.S.Rules and the order issued thereunder dated 21.7.1986 Ex.P-40. The claim of plaintiff has to be considered in the background of the right which he claims under Ex.P-40 viz., Government Order dated 21.7.1986. As rightly held by trial court, plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that Tournament which was said to have been attended to by him during the period from December 1993 to March 1994 would fall under the categories specified in the said Government Order. Undisputedly, no sanction order has been issued permitting plaintiff to participate in the said tournament. Dehors such non-issuance of the sanction, plaintiff has proceeded to attend the said tournament during this period. Since supporting 23 documents were not produced by the plaintiff along with his request for sanction of leave, the Executive Engineer has rightly forwarded the same to his superior officer i.e., Superintendent Engineer as per internal communication dated 30.12.1993 Ex.D-6 and he has sought for clarification in this regard. Perusal of the said communication i.e., Ex.D-6 would clearly indicate that relevant Government notifications issued from time to time governing the claim for casual leave under such categories has been considered, explained, narrated and furnished to the Superintendent Engineer for his clarification. The circular dated 24.3.1994 Ex.D-7 would make it explicitly clear that no official would be permitted to leave his seat without written order or permission. In other words, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to obtain the sanction and thereafter proceed to attend the tournament. In fact on 24.3.1994, Personnel Manager of second defendant-Board has intimated to the Chief Engineer particularly with reference to the participation of plaintiff in sports events whereunder it is stated that only when the official participates in the 24 events of national or international importance, the extant Rules and the Government Orders governing the same would be applicable, as otherwise the employees of the Board will not be allowed to be away from the city except on written permission orders.
16. Thus, Exs.D-8, D-9 read with Ex.D-7 and the Government Order dated 21.7.1986 Ex.P-40 would make it explicitly clear that without obtaining written permission from the competent authority, plaintiff was not entitled to seek special casual leave only on the ground that he was attending a sports event or a tournament which does not have the eligibility criteria fixed under Ex.P-40 namely Government Order. All the parameters or criteria fixed under Ex.P-40 and the Government Order issued from time to time was necessarily required to be adhered to by plaintiff. Undisputedly plaintiff has not obtained any sanction or permission from the competent authority to proceed on casual leave to attend a league tournament. 25
17. Even otherwise, plaintiff's claim was under
due consideration by the authorities and during the period of said consideration, competent authorities have also obtained certification from the organizers of the tournament, as seen from Ex.P-49 viz., the office order. Based on the said certification issued by organizers of the Sports event, the Assistant Executive Engineer has proceeded to treat said period as "ON DUTY" namely the period from 1.12.1993 and 31.3.1994 for plaintiff having participated in the sporting event as "Football coach". Though Mr.Keshavamurthy would attack this office order on the ground that said official was incompetent to issue such an order, I am unable to accept said contention for the reason that there is no material placed before this Court that (1) said order had been withdrawn by the competent authority; and (2) The Board itself accepted this order and has paid the salary to the plaintiff. As seen from the plea put forward in the written statement as well as additional written statement coupled with evidence of D-W-1, it would clearly indicate that on account of plaintiff being an 26 employee of the Board, they have accepted this order and paid the salary to him on 20.4.1996. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that order issued by the defendants accepting the plea of plaintiff for treating the said period to be on duty is erroneous. Though reading of Ex.P-40 would indicate a contrary view has to be taken since plaintiff does not meet any of the para- maters fixed thereunder, it is too late in the day for the defendants to turn around and contend that said order dated 10.8.1994 Ex.P-49 is not binding on them since they themselves have accepted it and paid the salary.
18. At the time of plaintiff's claim for sanctioning leave for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.3.1994 was under consideration before the authorities, plaintiff has approached this Court by filing a writ petition No.31101/1994 and this Court by order dated 28.3.1996, as per Ex.P-43, issued a direction by allowing the writ petition and directing the Board to release the salary of plaintiff for the period from 1.12.1993 and 31.3.1994. After having accepted the said amount paid by the defendants in the year 1996 27 i.e., after disposal of the writ petition, plaintiff has filed the present suit in question contending interalia that during the period viz., December 1993 to March 1994, plaintiff had to eke out his livelihood during said period on borrowed money. Said plea is too far fetched and not even in the vicinity of truth for being accepted for reasons more than one viz., (i) in the year 1993, plaintiff had already put in 20 years of service and he has been working as a Junior Assistant in the Board over a period of 20 years and it cannot be said that plaintiff would not have saved any amount and on account of withholding of salary for a period of two months, he had to borrow a sum of `15,000/- as per Exs.P-22 to P-26 and had to pay interest as per Exs.P-27 to P-35 and said plea is too remote for being considered or accepted. As to whether plaintiff borrowed said amount for this specific purpose viz., on account of non-payment of salary is a moot question, which has remained unanswered till date by plaintiff. The documents produced by plaintiff though held by the trial court as concocted, which cannot be so and at the most, it could 28 be held that said documents cannot be accepted or relied upon for decreeing the suit since plaintiff had utterly failed to establish the contents of said documents by examining the author of those documents. Some of the documents produced by the plaintiff viz., Exs.P-5 to P-13 are subsequent to the period of 31.3.1994. Undisputedly, from the month of April 1994, plaintiff had received the salary as usual and there has been no withholding of salary for the subsequent months. On account of there being a doubt with regard to the claim of the plaintiff for the period from December 1993 to March 1994, salary was withheld for the said period only. Even the said salary has been subsequently paid on 20.4.1996, even according to the plaintiff. Thus, trial court was justified in not relying upon these documents to consider the claim of the plaintiff for grant of damages.
19. Further, plaintiff is also not entitled for relief of damages of ` 60,000/- as claimed for yet another reason. In a suit for damages, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead, prove and establish that he had taken 29 all reasonable steps as expected of a prudent person to mitigate the losses. In the instant case, plaintiff has not established this fact clearly. The best way the plaintiff could have established this fact was to produce at least his Savings Bank Account Passbook to show that he was in penury or in financial distress during this period which had forced him to borrow money. In the absence of any material produced by the plaintiff in this regard, I am of the considered view that trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
20. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that trial court was fully justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and there has been no improper appreciation of evidence available on record or there is no non-appreciation of the material evidence available on record calling for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, I pass the following:
30
ORDER (1) Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(2) Judgment and decree passed by the VIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.6263/1996 dated 24.7.2003, is hereby affirmed.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-