SURESH KRISHNAJI Vs. SHANKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that there was a fundamental defect in tne presentation of HRC application, namely, HRC application in HRC No. 15/1969 inasmuch as the lawyer who presented the petition did not file a proper vakalath in the sense that the vakalath he filed before the Court was not duly signed by the party. Neither the Court nor the other side noticed this fact and the proceeding went on as if everything was quite regular. Ultimately, HRC petition No. 15/69 came fo be decreed in favour of the petitioner landlord. An appeal was instituted against the said decree for eviction and the appeal was dismissed and the matter was brought to this Court in a civil revision petition and the CRP was dismissed on 7 3 1974 and the order of eviction became final. It is thereafter that the tenant instituted OS No. 164/80 before the Prl. Civil Judge Belgaum praying for a declaration that the decree obtained for eviction in HRC No. 15/69 was void and that it could not be enforced against the platiff tenant. After hearing, the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and thereafter an appeal was instituted before the District Judge, Belgaum in RA No. 176/80 on his file. The II Addl. Dist. Judge, Belgaum, who heard the appeal raised the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal : x x x x

(2.) The learned Dist. Judge, reassessing the evidence on record in the light of the arguments addressed before him, held against the appellants on all the points and in that view dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

(3.) Notice was issued to the other side for admission and counsel were heard.