- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100077 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NANDI ENGINEERING LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G. ROAD, BENGLAURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. A. RUDRAGOUD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KUTHETNOOR P.O. VIA KATIPALLA, MANGALURU-575030. ALSO AT: MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED PLOT A-1, OPP. KSSIDC A.O. BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGLAURU-560010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED- 28.07.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN O.S.NO.396 OF 2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO.4 AND DECREE THE SUIT AS PRAYED IN THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 28.07.2017 in O.S.No.396/2017 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi1 rejecting I.A.No.4 filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. 2. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of eviction of the defendant inter alia sought for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property with mesne profits. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein by inviting attention of 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 the Court to para No.3 of the written statement that, as the defendant admits the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore to that extent said admission of the defendant regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant be considered and also termination of tenancy by the landlord has to be considered as an admission and to pass appropriate orders during the course of the proceedings. 4. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, having taken into consideration the fact that the suit is one for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and indisputably the written statement filed by the defendant was carefully examined by this Court and having taken note of the said aspect, the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC empowers the Court to pass orders by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction. 5. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 the case of CREF Finance Limited vs. Shanthi Homes Private Limited Company, Bangalore and Others reported in AIR 2006 KAR 54, wherein para Nos.7 and 8 reads as under: “7. When an application is filed under Order 12, Rule 6, objections are filed by the respondents denying in toto, the said documents would partake the character of a disputed documents. Under Section 18 of the Evidence Act, an opportunity is to be given to the respondents to explain the said admissions and in what situation those admissions were made. But however, this is a matter to be decided during the course of trial and not at a stage, when the applica-tion is being considered under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Viswanath v. Chandikaben J. Mehta reported in ILR (1989) Kar 3245: (AIR 1990 Kant 142) has held that as can be seen from the provision, the Court in its discretion has the jurisdiction to pass partial decree on the basis of the facts admitted, whether such admission is in the pleadings or otherwise. The scope of the above provision is, the ad-mission must be such which is complete and sufficient to pass a partial decree, which the Court proposes to pass on the basis of admission. The same view is taken in the case of Janardhan Jog v. Srikrishna reported in ILR (1989) Kant 1895 that the admission must be absolute and capable of being worked out by itself. It is also to be noticed that so far as the admission as contemplated under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 Procedure is concerned should independently stand without there being any interlink support and unless that is established, a decree under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be granted. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and also the law in what circumstances a decree could be granted under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. Consequently, I do no find any merit in this petition. Petition stands rejected. Any observation made in respect of the documents, which are referred to during the course of the order shall be only for the purpose of the disposal of the application under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which shall not have any hearing on the merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to prove the veracity of the said documents during the course of the trial. The learned trial Judge shall expedite trial and shall dispose of the same on or before the commencement of summer vacation 2006.” 6. Following the declaration of law made by this Court referred to above, since the Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that a full fledged trial is required to be conducted into the admissions, if any, made in the written - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 statement by the defendant and therefore the revisional jurisdiction which is limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC is to be exercised sparingly and in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner herein has not made out a case for interference of the same. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 and in the case of Uttam Singh Dugal and Company Limited vs. Unied Bank of India and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 2740. 8. Following the declaration of law made in the aforementioned judgements, I am of the view that the admissions, if any, made by the defendant in the written statement as contended by the plaintiff in I.A.No.4 has to be considered only during the course of trial and not at this stage and therefore the Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.4 filed by the plaintiff herein and therefore no interference is called for in this petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4350 CRP No. 100077 of 2021 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31