Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Saifulla vs Sri Cuddapah Niyazi Sadith Ali Khan on 2 August, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
RFA No. 347 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAMMED SAIFULLA
S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUFF
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.773, BEHIND POPS
FOOD PRODUCTS,
NEAR BANGALORE ENGINEERING WORKS
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 032
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CUDDAPAH NIYAZI SADITH ALI KHAN
@ C N SADAT ALI KHAN
S/O NISAR AHMED KHAN C N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 2. MRS NIYAZI TANZEEM KAUSER SADATH
MALATESH
KC W/O C N SADAT ALI KHAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF BOTH PRESENT RESIDING AT
KARNATAKA DAMMAM, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO. 6/80, A RAVINDRA NAGAR
KADAPA
REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY SRI MUSHARRAF ALI KHAN
MUHAMMED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30802
RFA No. 347 of 2015
S/O LATE LAL KHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.4/1, 2ND CROSS
MUNIVEERAPPA LAYOUT, SHAMPURA
BANGALORE-560045
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.Z.A.KHURESHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2014
PASSED IN OS NO.8365/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT - VIII C/c XXXVII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREED THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION, MESNE PROFIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri H. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Suit in O.S.No.8365/2012 came to be decreed and operative portions of the order reads is as under:
"The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is decreed with exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the plaintiffs.
It is hereby declared that the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2008 in O.S.No.10054/2006 is not -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30802 RFA No. 347 of 2015 binding and enforceable against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises.
Subsequently, it is hereby declared that the possession taken by the defendant in Execution No.1190/2010 is illegal.
The defendant is hereby directed to deliver and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit schedule property in good condition within ninety days from the date of this order.
There shall be a separate enquiry regarding mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Office is directed to send a copy of the Office Lease Agreement to Deputy Commissioner to recover deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.88,000/- from the defendant as arrears of land revenue and report compliance.
The Registrar of City Civil Court is directed to file a complaint against the defendant with a copy of this judgment and the Office Lease Agreement before the jurisdictional court for the offences punishable under section 193, 209 and 210 of IPC.
Draw decree accordingly"
3. Appellant is now aggrieved only with regard to the action to be taken in respect of directions of the Trial Court -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30802 RFA No. 347 of 2015 insofar as the 'Office Lease Agreement' for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 209 and 210 IPC.
4. The learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that the 'Office Lease Agreement' produced by the defendant/appellant was a concocted and forged document. Therefore, directed the Registrar, City Civil Court to file complaint for the aforesaid offences.
5. Learned Trial Judge should have been more specific in passing such direction in accordance with law. Such a procedure has not been properly adopted by the learned Judge in the Trial Court. Therefore, exercising the appellate powers vested in this Court, appellant/defendant seeks to set aside the direction with regard to the registration of the criminal complaint.
6. Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Court has recorded a categorical finding that it is a concocted document besides being improperly stamped.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30802 RFA No. 347 of 2015
7. He also pointed out that the trial Court has passed an order impugned in the document and for collection of the stamp duty, the document is to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner for collection of proper stamp duty and penalty and also directed the Registrar, City Civil Court in lodging the complaint which is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances.
8. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. Since the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment with regard to the initiating of the criminal action is improper for want of necessary details and the document has not been marked even for the purpose as a Court document.
10. Taking note of the fact that the suit itself is of the year 2012 and the possession of the property has been handed over to the appellant and the respondents, if the direction with regard to the criminal action is set aside, ends of justice would -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30802 RFA No. 347 of 2015 be met in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping intact the other directions issued by the learned Trial Judge.
Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) While confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8365/2012, the directions issued by the learned Trial Judge to the Registrar, City Civil Court to file a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 209 and 210 of Indian Penal Code as against the appellant herein is hereby set aside in the interest of justice.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64