Rangappa Vs. K. Ramachandra Murthy - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 22 of 1961) - section 21 - party subsequently brought on record as respondent, examined as witness earlier, does not prevent leading evidence as party. ; the fact that the revision-petitioner who was subsequently brought on record as 2nd respondent has been examined as a witness for the tenant, cannot be allowed to come in the way of the revision-petitioner (2nd respondent) leading his evidence as a party. - section 2(f) ; [dr. k.bhakthavatsala, j] object and scope - right to information -information sought by the third respondent regarding statement of assets and liabilities of the petitioner for the relevant periods - whether the information sought is covered within the meaning of information as defined under section 2(f) of the act? held, the object of the act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. in view of the above provisions excerpted, it cannot be said that section 2(f) of the act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. the intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. therefore, the respondent no.3 had no right under the act to seek personal information of the petitioner. further, as the respondents application is vexatious and it is an attempt made to settle scores with the petitioner, it is a fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.3. impugned order was quashed and cost of rs.10,000/- was imposed. ordervishwanath, j 1. heard, admitted 2. in this revision petition the second respondent in the court below (revision-petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated 14.11.1995 passed in hrc 2303/1992 on the file of the ii additional judge, court of small causes, bangalore, rejecting i.a.no. 8 filed by the revision-petitioner under section 151 of the code of civil procedure.3. the prayer made in i.a.8 filed by the revision-petitioner/2nd respondent is that he should be permitted to lead his evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent.4. to appreciate the point for determination the few facts necessary are:-the eviction petition hrc.2303/1992 was filed by the landlord ramachandra murthy against the respondent-tenant smt. lalithamma. at the instance of the landlord, the revision-petitioner rangappa has been brought on record on 23.09.1995 as second respondent. after he was brought on record as respondent no. 2 he filed i.a.no. 8 praying that he should be permitted to lead evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent. 5. the learned small causes judge rejected i.a.no. 8 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has already been examined in the case as rw2. true, but rw2 (present revision-petitioner) has been examined as a witness for the tenant smt lalithamma. the fact that the revision-petitioner who was subsequently brought on record as a 2nd respondent has been examined as a witness for the tenant, cannot be allowed to come in the way of the revision-petitioner (2nd respondent) leading his evidence as a party. in that view of the matter the order passed by the lower court is perverse.6. for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the lower court is directed to permit the revision-petitioner (2nd respondent in the court-below) to adduce his evidence as a party.the revision petition allowed accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

Vishwanath, J

1. Heard, Admitted

2. In this Revision Petition the Second Respondent in the Court below (Revision-petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated 14.11.1995 passed in HRC 2303/1992 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, rejecting I.A.No. 8 filed by the Revision-petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The prayer made in I.A.8 filed by the Revision-petitioner/2nd respondent is that he should be permitted to lead his evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent.

4. To appreciate the point for determination the few facts necessary are:-

The Eviction Petition HRC.2303/1992 was filed by the landlord Ramachandra Murthy against the respondent-tenant Smt. Lalithamma. At the instance of the landlord, the Revision-petitioner Rangappa has been brought on record on 23.09.1995 as Second Respondent.

After he was brought on record as Respondent No. 2 he filed I.A.No. 8 praying that he should be permitted to lead evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent.

5. The learned Small Causes Judge rejected I.A.No. 8 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has already been examined in the case as RW2. True, but RW2 (present Revision-petitioner) has been examined as a witness for the tenant Smt Lalithamma. The fact that the Revision-petitioner who was subsequently brought on record as a 2nd respondent has been examined as a witness for the tenant, cannot be allowed to come in the way of the Revision-petitioner (2nd respondent) leading his evidence as a party. In that view of the matter the order passed by the lower Court is perverse.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to permit the Revision-petitioner (2nd respondent in the Court-below) to adduce his evidence as a party.

The Revision Petition allowed accordingly.