The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2016 (MON) BETWEEN: SRI.AMARNATH, S/O.NABHIRAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF FE DESIGNS, NO.35, 2ND FLOOR, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE. (BY SRI.LOKESH.C., ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT 1. KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT. LTD., Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA OFFICE AT: F-17(I), PHASE-I, IDA, JEEDIMETLA, HYDERABAD - 500 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS, P.S. RAVICHANDER.
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI.P.S.RAVICHANDER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT LTD., FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT. UMA RAVICHANDER DIRECTOR, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT LTD., W/O P.S.RAVICHANDER, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT: C/O A.G.MURALI NO.616/2, 4TH CROSS, CHIKKA BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043. (V/O DATED 12.10.2023 - R1 TO 3 ARE SERVED BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION) …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri. Lokesh C., counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person. An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 05.06.2018. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to the respondents is held sufficient vide order dated 12.10.2023. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranking and status before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: The plaintiff, Amarnath, is a Proprietor of FE Designs and owns a dealership of CYPE dealing in the business of Software. It is said that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are college mates and they were friends. After a long time, defendant No.3 met plaintiff at his office in November 2011 and requested a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest. The plaintiff arranged Rs.7,65,000/- and paid the said amount through online transfer i.e., Net Banking. The plaintiff paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the company account - defendant No.1 in two payments i.e., Rs.4,50,000/- on 22.03.2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.03.2012 and Rs.1,15,000/- to defendant No.2 in two payments i.e., Rs.65,000/- on 24.03.2012 and Rs.50,000/- on 26.03.2012. After receipt of the said amount, they acknowledged the same and sent a reply to the plaintiff through email and also undertook to pay the amount within three months with interest. Defendant No.3 did not pay the principal or the interest amount till August 2013. However, she - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR made certain payments on different dates. After the said payments, she was still due Rs.10,39,000/- towards interest and principal. Despite several demands, the defendants did not come forward to pay the amount, and they postponed the payment on one pretext or the other pretext. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of money. After service of the suit summons, the defendants did not appear before the Court. Hence, they were placed ex parte. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as exhibits. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2016 dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions. (1) B. SRIKANTH VS. ERUKALA LAXMI SUVARNAMUKHI - 2006 (3) ALD 62. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR (2) JAY AMBE INDUSTRIES, PROPRIETOR SHRI DINESHKUMAR BAJRANGLAL SOMANI VS. GARNET SPECIALITY PAPER LTD - (2022) 01 GUJ CK 0013. 6. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. 7. The facts are sufficiently said, and the same does not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the payment of money. The Trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit. The dismissal of the suit on this count is erroneous. The reason is apparent. A legal notice is not always mandatory before claiming or recovering money, it is a strong and often recommended first step. It provides formal notification of ones intention to pursue legal action if the money is not repaid. Furthermore, a demand notice is not always mandatory before filing a money suit. A demand notice can significantly strengthen the plaintiff's case. The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously dismissed the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR Ex.P.1 is the Statement Transaction of the account maintained by the plaintiff in ICICI Bank. A perusal of the same reflects the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- made to KANTHA MANEY. The material on record depicts that the defendants had borrowed the money and undertook to repay the same. However, they did not do the needful. The Trial Court unnecessarily dealt with the matter as if it’s a case of proof of electronic evidence, which is not so. It is significant to note vide order dated 16.09.2015, the defendants were placed ex-parte before the Trial Court, and before this Court, they have not contested. To conclude, I can say only this much that the plaintiff has established his case and he is entitled to the relief. As already noted above, the issue falls within a narrow compass, pleadings are quite simple and the documents exhibited are also minimum. There is nothing much to elaborate. 8. The Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2016 passed by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.2533/2015 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21015 RFA No. 917 of 2016 HC-KAR to recover a sum of Rs.10,39,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of suit till realization. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the decree accordingly. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60