High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Eviction Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 115 CPC. Tenant's Revision Against Eviction Order Dismissed as No Jurisdictional Error or Material Irregularity Shown.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 14:57:31

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a civil revision petition filed by Sri Ishwar Gundojirao Genje @ Muchandi (petitioner) against the legal heirs of the deceased respondent Smt. Nemabai @ Parvati Peerajimasekar and others. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court in an eviction suit. The petitioner contended that the courts below erred in holding him as a tenant and ordering eviction. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, examined the concurrent findings of fact. The court noted that the findings of the courts below were based on evidence and there was no jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The High Court held that the scope of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope of Revision - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-5)

B) Rent Control and Eviction - Eviction Suit - Concurrent Findings - The courts below concurrently found that the petitioner was a tenant and liable to be evicted. The High Court upheld these findings as they were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in an eviction suit.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below and confirming the eviction order.

Law Points

Concurrent findings of fact
Section 115 CPC
Scope of revision
Eviction suit
Jurisdictional error
Material irregularity

Case Details

2026 LawText (KAR) (04) 20

CRP No. 100019 of 2025

2026-04-08

Ravi V. Hosmani

Sourabh Hegde

Sri Ishwar Gundojirao Genje @ Muchandi

Smt. Nemabai @ Parvati Peerajimasekar (since deceased by her legal heirs) and others

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition against concurrent findings in an eviction suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the eviction order on the ground that the courts below erred in holding him as a tenant and ordering eviction.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed eviction; first appellate court confirmed the decree.

Issues

Whether the High Court under Section 115 CPC can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an eviction suit.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the courts below erred in holding him as a tenant and ordering eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error.

Judgment Excerpts

The scope of revision under Section 115 CPC is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Procedural History

The trial court decreed eviction against the petitioner. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioner filed a civil revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC.