Karnataka High Court
H Nagamani vs Sri H Narayana on 11 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.10/2024 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
1. H. NAGAMANI,
W/O P.N.NARASIMHALLU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2. H. MANJULAMMA,
W/O P.N. NARASIMHALLU,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.24/39,
6TH MAIN ROAD, DATTATREYANAGAR,
HOSAKEREHALLI, B.S.K. 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. H. NARAYANA,
S/O H. HANUMANTHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT 24/39, GROUND FLOOR,
SOUTHERN PORTION, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
DATTATREYANAGAR,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R - ABSENT)
2
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN HRC NO.2/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA NO.1 FILED
UNDER ORDER 43(2)(b) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC, TO STOP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 04.07.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The respondent though represented through counsel,
the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent did not appear
before the Court. On 02.06.2025, 06.06.2025 and 17.06.2025
also the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent was
absent. Hence, this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025 made it
clear that if the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent
does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be
heard in his absence and the learned counsel did not choose to
appear before the Court on 04.07.2025 also. Hence, the matter
was heard in the absence of the learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent and reserved the matter.
3
3. This petition is filed challenging the allowing of the
application filed under Section 43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent
Act, 1999 read with Section 151 of CPC dismissing the eviction
petition and directing the parties to approach the competent
Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners
before the Trial Court invoking Section 27(2)(a) and (r) and
Section 31(1)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is that the
petitioners filed the petition seeking an order of eviction against
the respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises,
which is morefully described in the schedule. It is contended
that the petitioners are the joint and absolute owners in
possession of the property, which is morefully described in the
schedule and the same having purchased under the registered
sale deed dated 16.12.2004. The said property was consisting
of a 4 square house in the ground floor. Subsequently, the
petitioners got constructed the first floor portion consisting of 4
square house. It is contended that the respondent is the elder
brother of the petitioners and during the year 2007, the
respondent was inducted as a tenant in the southern half portion
premises situated at ground floor of the said property,
4
measuring east to west 11 feet and north to south 15 feet, on a
monthly rental basis. The rent agreement is dated 13.05.2007
and was for a period of 11 months. The respondent had agreed
to pay a rent of Rs.800/- per month and paid advance of
Rs.8,000/- and the said rent was excluding the water and
electricity charges. The petitioners subsequently extended the
tenancy from time to time as per the verbal terms and
conditions of the parties and accordingly the rent in respect of
the schedule property was enhanced from time to time and
during the year March 2017, the respondent was paying a rent
of Rs.2,400/- per month. In the month of March 2017, the
petitioners requested the respondent to vacate and deliver the
vacant possession of the schedule premises as the same was
required for their own use and occupation. However, the
respondent evaded the same on one or the other pretext and not
complied the said bonafide request of the petitioners.
5. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a physically
handicapped with deaf and dumb problem since birth. The
petitioner No.2 is the younger sister of petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 is taking care of the affairs of the entire property.
The copy of the physically handicapped certificate of petitioner
5
No.1 is also placed on record. When the respondent did not
vacate, a legal notice was issued terminating the tenancy on
09.01.2018. The respondent issued reply dated 10.02.2018
denying the relationship between the parties. It is contended
that in the month of March 2018, the respondent arranged a
Panchayath with the parents of the petitioners and the
respondent and other elders of their native, wherein the
respondent has requested for some more time to vacate the
schedule premises and assured that he will soon vacate and
handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises
without fail. The petitioners agreed for the said request of the
respondent. However, taking undue advantage of the said
gesture of the petitioners, the respondent started postponing the
demand of the petitioners and squatting on the schedule
premises. Hence, the petitioners were forced to file a petition
for eviction.
6. The respondent appeared and filed objections
denying the landlord and tenant relationship and contended that
the petitioners and the respondent are the sisters and brother.
It is also contended that the petitioners have not approached the
Court with clean hands. The suit schedule premises is the part
6
and parcel of the joint family property. The respondent is
entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property and other
properties between the petitioners and the respondent. The
respondent has not paid any rent at any point of time to the
petitioners in respect of the schedule premises. The respondent
denied the contention of the petitioners that they are the
absolute owners, however, admitted the relationship. The
respondent denied inducting as tenant in the year 2007 based on
the rental agreement and on rent of Rs.800/- per month and
paid advance of Rs.8,000/-. The respondent denied the
payment of rent of Rs.2,400/- per month and periodical
enhancement. It is contended that the petitioners and the
respondent are jointly residing in the schedule premises for the
last three decades. It is contended that the respondent and the
petitioners' father is H.Hanumantharaya and mother Narasamma
and the parents had five children i.e., two sons and three
daughters. The respondent is entitled for equal share in the suit
schedule premises, which is the joint family property of the
petitioners and the respondent and hence prayed the Court to
dismiss the petition.
7
7. The petitioners in order to prove their case examined
petitioner No.2 as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the
petition and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. P.W.1
was subjected to cross-examination. The petitioners also
examined one witness as P.W.2 and through P.W.2 got marked
the documents at Exs.P.7 and 8 and he was subjected to cross-
examination. The respondent also examined himself as R.W.1
and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 and 2 and he was also
subjected to cross-examination. The respondent also examined
his mother as R.W.2 and the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 is
clear denial of the jural relationship between the parties and
both R.W.1 and R.W.2 were also cross-examined. During the
course of cross-examination of R.W.1, the petitioners confronted
the documents of Exs.P.9 to 11 and R.W.1 admitted the
documents. The respondent also filed an application under
Section 43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act read with Section
151 of CPC, praying the Court to stop all the further proceedings
in the matter and direct the petitioners to approach the Court of
civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights on the petition
schedule premises. The said application was resisted by the
8
petitioners by filing objections reiterating the averments of the
petition.
8. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record, passed an order on I.A.No.1 i.e., an
application filed under Section 43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent
Act read with 151 of CPC, allowing the application and stopped
all further proceedings in the case and directed the parties to
approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration
of their rights. Hence, the present revision petition is filed
before this Court.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an
error in not considering the document of Ex.P.6. The signatures
of the respondent found in Ex.P.6 and his admitted signatures
found in Exs.P.8 to 11 are all same, however the said aspect has
not been considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court failed to
note that the respondent intentionally changed the signature
while entering his appearance before the Trial Court and no
other documents are produced by him to prove his signature.
The Trial Court not at all appreciated the evidence of P.W.1,
9
wherein she has categorically stated about the bonafide
requirement of the schedule promises and also failed to consider
the evidence of P.W.2 Nagaraj, who was the earlier tenant under
the petitioners in respect of the very same schedule premises
and P.W.2 had also witnessed the document of Ex.P.6 rental
agreement. Though nothing was elicited from the mouth of
P.W.2 to disprove his positive evidence, the Trial Court failed to
appreciate his evidence. The Trial Court without properly
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by the
parties and by misreading the evidence, especially the evidence
of R.W.2, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
petitioners have not proved the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant with the respondent. The very approach of the Trial
Court is erroneous. The Trial Court failed to take note of the fact
that the property was purchased by the petitioners vide sale
deed dated 06.12.2004 and the same remained unchallenged.
The question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not
relevant and the Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that
P.W.2 was the earlier tenant in respect of the very same
premises and in his presence only the respondent affixed his
signature and the same is spoken by P.W.2 and did not suggest
10
P.W.2 that the respondent did not sign the document in his
presence and committed an error and hence it requires
interference of this Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and also on perusal of the material available on record, the
points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
allowing the application filed under Section
43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 read
with Section 151 of CPC, in stopping all further
proceedings and directing the parties to
approach the competent Court of civil
jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and taking into note of the pleadings of the parties, no doubt,
there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship between
the parties. The petitioners in order to prove their case
reiterated the averments in the affidavit and relies upon the
documents of Exs.P.1 to 6, including the rental agreement,
notice exchanged between the parties, khatha certificate and
11
also notarized copy of the disability certificate of petitioner No.1.
In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits the relationship between
the petitioners and the respondent as his elder brother and
admitted that they were five children to their parents. P.W.1
stated that the petition schedule premises is the self-acquired
property of their mother. It is suggested that after the mother
had purchased the property, all of them were residing in the said
premises and the same was denied, however, admitted that the
plaint schedule premises was constructed by their parents. A
suggestion was made that all of them have joined in construction
of the house and the same was denied. It was suggested that
the respondent contributed funds for construction of the house
and the same was denied. P.W.1 admits that the petition
schedule premises was constructed in the year 1989 and also
admits that not issued any rental receipts to the respondent for
having received the rents. It is suggested that Ex.P.6 is created
for the purpose of this case to defraud the rights of their brother
and the same was denied.
12. The petitioners also examined P.W.2, who filed an
affidavit stating that he was a tenant under the petitioners in
respect of the schedule premises from January 2005 to April
12
2007. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the suit
schedule premises. It is also his evidence that subsequently
when he has vacated the suit premises, the respondent has
occupied the same as a tenant and entered into an agreement
with petitioner No.2 by executing the document of rental
agreement on 13.05.2007 and he has witnessed the said
agreement along with one more witness Sri Nataraj. He says
that P.W.2, respondent and the said Nataraj have signed the
said rent agreement before him and he has affixed his signature.
P.W.2 got marked the documents at Exs.P.7 and 8 i.e., Aadhar
card and election identity card of his wife. In the address
mentioned in Exs.P.7 and 8, they were residing in the petition
schedule premises. This witness was subjected to cross-
examination.
13. In the cross-examination, he admits that his
residential address is No.45, 4th Main Road, Dattatreyanagara,
Hosakerehalli, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru. He has
produced the Aadhar card. For the same address, he has got
voter ID card. As per Ex.P.7, his address is different i.e., earlier
address. The address mentioned in Exs.P.7 and 8 are same. It
13
is suggested that even though as on today he is residing in the
address mentioned in Exs.P.7 and 8, he is falsely deposing
before the Court and the same was denied. It is his evidence
that the respondent used to visit the house of the petitioners and
they used to tell that he is their brother. When a suggestion was
made that the respondent is also a co-owner of the petition
schedule premises, he says that he is not aware of the same, but
volunteers that petitioner No.2 had executed the lease
agreement in his favour. Around 2007, there was an agreement
between petitioner No.2 and the respondent with reference to
handing over the possession of the petition schedule premises to
him after he vacated the petition schedule premises. It is
suggested that Ex.P.6 is a created document and the same was
denied. The present suit is with reference to the property which
was occupied by him as a tenant. The measurement of that
property might be around 15 x 12 feet. It is suggested that
Ex.P.6 is a created document in collusion with the petitioners
and himself and the same was denied. A suggestion was made
that as on today, he is in occupation of the petition schedule
premises and deposing falsely and the said suggestion was
denied.
14
14. R.W.1 in his evidence reiterated the averments of
the objection statement and marked the documents at Exs.R1,
R1(a) and R2. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is
working in Bharath Electronics Ltd. after he completed his
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. When a question was put to
him whether he can produce any document to show that the
petition schedule premises is the joint family property, he
answers that he is required to enquire his mother and says that
he do not know at present in whose name the petition schedule
premises is standing. A suggestion was made that the mother
had sold the property in favour of the petitioners on 06.12.2004
and the same was denied, but admits that Narasamma is his
mother. He admits that he has not paid the tax of the petition
schedule premises, as it is not standing in his name. A
suggestion was made that he is a tenant in the petition schedule
premises and having no right or title over the petition schedule
premises and the same is denied. With regard to his signature is
concerned, he says that since beginning, he used to sign in the
same manner, which is appearing in his chief examination
affidavit. When the document of SSLC marks card was
confronted, he admits the same and the same is marked as
15
Ex.P.9 and he also admits his signature. But, he volunteers that
after II year PUC, he changed his signature. The hall ticket of
his Diploma III year examination was confronted to him and he
admits the same as Ex.P.10 and his signature is marked as
Ex.P.10(a). He admits that on the back side of Ex.P.10, his
photo is affixed and volunteers he changed his signature style.
15. The other document confronted to him is the
signature made by him when the offer of employment was given
to him on 31.12.2004 and he admits the same and the same is
marked as Ex.P.11 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.11(a).
He denies that the signature on Ex.P.6 belongs to him. He
admits that he has not maintained any documents to show that
he has spent amount for construction of the house and denied
the investment made by him for construction. A specific
question was put to him that he was inducted as a tenant in
terms of Ex.P.6 and the same was denied. A suggestion was
made that he made the payment of rent at the rate of
Rs.2,400/- per month till March 2017 and the same was denied.
He admits that petitioner No.1 is deaf and dumb. He admits that
the petitioners have requested him to vacate the petition
schedule premises. A suggestion was made that there was a
16
conciliation between the petitioners and himself before the elders
in the year 2018 and the same was denied, however he
volunteers that their parents came and there was a discussion,
but there was no Panchayath.
16. The other witness is the mother R.W.2 and in her
evidence she says that she acquired the petition schedule
premises through a unregistered power of attorney. She says
that she has registered nominal sale deed in the name of her
daughters without receiving any sale consideration on
06.12.2004. She says that they have continued in joint
possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondent has
contributed his hard earned money for construction of residential
houses and the premises is their joint family property and all are
entitled for equal share. In the cross-examination, R.W.2 admits
that after she has executed the sale deed dated 06.12.2004, the
petitioners have become the owners of the petition schedule
premises and however, admits that the respondent is in
possession of the petition schedule premises. A suggestion was
made that the respondent is in possession as a tenant and the
same is denied. A suggestion was made that before filing the
petition, she was requested to get the respondent vacated from
17
the premises and the same was denied. She admits that the
ground floor was constructed by her and the first floor was
constructed by the petitioners. She says that she is not having
any documents to show that the respondent has also contributed
for construction of the petition schedule premises. It is admitted
that she was not residing in the petition schedule premises after
execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners.
17. Having re-assessed the material available on record,
it is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the
property from their mother in the year 2004 and also the
documents of Exs.P.1 and 2 stands in the name of the
petitioners. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 is a deaf and
dumb and to that effect, the document of Ex.P.3 is produced
before the Court. The notice was issued to the respondent in
terms of Ex.P.4 and reply was given in terms of Ex.P.5. The
main contention of the petitioners is that there is an agreement
between the petitioners and the respondent in terms of Ex.P.6
and the said document is marked and in order to prove this
document, the petitioners examined P.W.2, who was the earlier
tenant of P.W.1 in respect of the very same premises in which
the respondent is residing. The Aadhar card of P.W.2, which is
18
marked as Ex.P.7, discloses the address of the petition schedule
premises and also voter ID card of his wife Ex.P.8 also discloses
the very same address i.e., petition schedule premises. These
documents clearly evidence the fact that P.W.2 was a tenant in
respect of the very same premises. It is important to note that
P.W.2 deposes before the Court that after he vacated the
premises, the respondent came to the very same premises and
the document Ex.P.6 came into existence in his presence. His
evidence is clear that in his presence only petitioner No.2,
respondent and another witness Nataraj signed the document of
Ex.P.6. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing is suggested
that R.W.1 did not make his signature in the presence of P.W.2,
but only a suggestion was made that the document of Ex.P.6 is a
created document. P.W.2 says that around 2007, there was an
agreement between petitioner No.2 and the respondent with
reference to handing over the possession of the petition schedule
premises to him after he vacated the petition schedule premises.
He admits that the present suit is with reference to the property
which was occupied by him as a tenant and he also specifies the
measurement of the premises. In the chief evidence, he
categorically stated in the affidavit that petitioner No.2,
19
respondent and the said Nataraj have signed the said agreement
before him and he also affixed his signature. Hence, the
evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that he affixed the signature on
the document Ex.P.6.
18. R.W.1 though denied his signature on Ex.P.6, in the
cross-examination, he categorically says that since beginning he
used to sign in the same manner, which is appearing in his chief
examination affidavit. Having compared the signature on Ex.P.6,
it is different from the signature on vakalath and affidavit. He
admits that since beginning he used to sign in the same manner,
but when the document of SSLC marks card is confronted to
him, he admits his signature in Ex.P.9, but the same is different
signature. He volunteers that after II PUC examination, he had
changed his signature. When he gave such an answer, the other
document of hall ticket of III year Diploma was confronted to
him which is marked as Ex.P.10 and he admits his signature as
Ex.P.10(a) and he volunteers that he changed his signature
style. One more document was confronted to him dated
31.12.2004 i.e., offer letter for his employment and the same is
marked as Ex.P.11 and signature of the witness on Ex.P.11 is
marked as Ex.P.11(a).
20
19. Having considered these documents, SSLC marks
card of R.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.9 is dated 01.07.1994.
Though R.W.1 contended that he had changed his signature
after II PUC, but the signature in Ex.P.10 i.e., hall ticket of
Diploma examination in the year 2001 and so also the signature
in Ex.P.11 i.e., offer of employment in Aditya Horologicals
Limited on 31.12.2004 are similar to the signature in 1994 and
for a period from 1994 to 2004, his signatures are similar. The
very explanation and voluntary evidence that he had changed his
signature after II PUC falsifies his contention and all his
signatures are similar from 1994 to 2004 and only in an
ingenious method while appearing before the Court he had
changed his signature while filing the vakalath as well as the
evidence. These factors were not taken note of by the Trial
Court that the respondent has adopted an ingenious method in
giving a false evidence before the Court and he says that after II
PUC he had changed the style of his signature, but even during
the course of employment also, his signature is same. The Trial
Court ought to have compared the present signature and earlier
signature from 1994 to 2004 and the same is not done under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and nothing is
21
discussed about exercising of power under Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
20. It is important to note that though R.W.2 mother
comes before the Court and files chief affidavit that it is a joint
family property, but categorically admits in the cross-
examination that when she had sold the property in favour of the
petitioners, the petitioners became the owners of the property.
R.W.2 also admits that they have constructed only ground floor
premises. R.W.1 admits that the same was done in the year
1989 and admits that the petitioners have constructed first floor
portion. Though it is contended that the respondent has
contributed money for construction of the petition schedule
premises, both the respondent and R.W.2 have not produced
any documents to prove the same. It is important to note that
R.W.2 admits that she was not residing in the petition schedule
premises after execution of the sale deed in favour of the
petitioners. Though, it is stated in the affidavit that it is only a
nominal sale deed of R.W.2, but categorically admits that the
petitioners have become the owners of the property.
22
21. These admissions were not considered by the Trial
Court while considering the material available on record. I have
already pointed out that the signature identified in Ex.P.6 by
P.W.2 is that of the signature of the respondent has not been
suggested to P.W.2, who is one of the witness to the document
of Ex.P.6. P.W.2 categorically says that in his presence only the
respondent had affixed his signature. No doubt, the mother
comes and deposes that it is a joint family property. If it is a
joint family property, there is no explanation as to what made
her to sell the property in favour of the petitioners. R.W.2
categorically admits that after selling the property, she did not
continue in the possession of the said property, if really it is a
nominal sale deed and this fact is also not considered by the
Trial Court and the Trial Court erroneously comes to the
conclusion that the jural relationship is not established. I have
already pointed out that the Trial Court did not choose to
compare the signature by exercising the power conferred under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no categorical
denial by the respondent with regard to his signature on Ex.P.6
when the signature of the respondent was identified through
P.W.2 and nothing is suggested that his signature not belongs to
23
him and instead of he has adopted an ingenious method making
the signature in different way in the vakalath and chief evidence.
When the documents are confronted, he categorically admitted
the signatures in Exs.P.9 to 11 and those documents came into
existence from 1994 to 2014 and similar signature is available in
Ex.P.6 also. All these materials clearly discloses that the
respondent took up a false defence and even he had gone to the
extent of adopting an ingenious method of making the signature
in a different way and when those documents were confronted,
he admitted his signatures. The Trial Court ought to have taken
note of the said fact into consideration and ought to have
compared the signatures. Hence, the Trial Court committed an
error in appreciating the material available on record and the
respondent even denied the sale in favour of the petitioners, but
mother R.W.2, who executed the document, admits the same.
22. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when the
notice was issued, the respondent denied the tenancy and he
postponed to vacate the premises and Panchayath was held.
Though R.W.2 denies that no such request was made to vacate
the premises, but R.W.1 categorically admits that no such
Panchayath was held, but parents came and there was a
24
discussion. Hence, it is clear that the parents came and
discussed the same. R.W.1 admits that the petitioners have
requested him to vacate the petition schedule premises and the
same is admitted in paragraph No.4 of the cross-examination
and no doubt, he denies Panchayath, but the fact that the
parents came and discussion was made to that effect is also
admitted by R.W.1. All these materials discloses that after the
issuance of notice in the month of January 2018 and when the
Panchayath was held, the petitioners requested the respondent
to vacate the petition schedule premises and the respondent
agreed to vacate the same. But when he did not vacate the
petition schedule premises, the petitioners were forced to file a
petition in the month of January 2019 after the issuance of legal
notice in the month of January 2018 as per Ex.P.4. The same is
also clear that the respondent had agreed to vacate the
premises and when he did not vacate the premises, the
petitioners were forced to file a petition almost after one year of
causing of notice. Hence, taking note of the material available
on record and the averments of the petition, it is clear that the
respondent agreed to vacate, but not vacated. The Trial Court
committed an error in dismissing the petition by stopping all
25
further proceedings and allowing the application. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
23. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is set aside and it is held that there is a jural relationship between the parties in terms of Ex.P.6.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court.
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to consider the petition on merits in accordance with law.
(v) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.08.2025, without expecting any notice from the Trial Court.
(vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from 04.08.2025.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE MD