- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The order under challenge was passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a first appeal in the following circumstances: the respondent, the landlord of premises in Bangalore, was sued by the appellant tenant for breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. During the course of the examination-in-chief of the Chief Administrative Officer of the tenant, the lease deed dated 1-8-1994 was produced. The transcript of the evidence shows that: "the same is marked as Exhibit P-6. (Subject to objection, the same is marked. ) " It appears from the order of the trial court that the Chief Administrative Officer of the tenant was cross-examined only in part. Due to the failure of the landlord to remain present thereafter, despite being given sufficient opportunity, the cross-examination of the Chief administrative Officer was not completed nor did the landlord adduce his own evidence. The trial court then delivered the judgment, taking into account, inter alia, the lease Exhibit P-6, and it decreed the suit.
(3.) Thereagainst, the landlord filed the first appeal before the High Court. The High Court, by the judgment and order under challenge, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and remanded the suit to the trial court for "fresh disposal". This was done for the reason that "The trial Judge has relied upon these documents which were marked 'subject to objection'. These documents could not have been looked into while deciding this case. In the absence of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement Ext. P-6, which the Court cannot look into, it is difficult for the Court to decide the contention raised by the parties". The High Court added that it "could not decide the admissibility or otherwise of those documents marked subject to objection in the absence of any decision of the trial court". Therefore, in its opinion, the suit required consideration at the hands of the trial court itself.;