The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2021 (MON) BETWEEN: M/S SAMUDRA INDUSTRY A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NO. 52, KARNAD INDUSTRIAL AREA MULKY, MANGALORE TALUK DK DISTRICT 574 154 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. P RAGHURAM S/O. MADHAVA AITHAL AGE 58 YEARS, R/AT MALEMAR ARYAMARGA, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT 575 006 (BY SRI. P VITTAL SHETTY., ADV.) AND: … APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka
Legal Reasoning
M/S SHIVAGANGA INDUSTRIES PLOT NO. 325 (P) PHASE KIADB INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRESS SMT.CHAMPADEVI W/O. LATE. SHRAVAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS … RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.8400/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. P. Vittal Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained absent. 3. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2021 passed in O.S.No.8400/2018 on the file of the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore wherein the Trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of money. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he is the manufacturer of water storage plastic tank and its accessories and he is carrying on business at No.52, Karnad Industrial Area, Mulky, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., District. 5. The defendant/respondent had approached the plaintiff on 07.03.2013 and requested for a credit transaction with the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff is in the business filed had agreed to the proposal of the defendant. In the said business, the defendant herein had purchased items on credit basis on 31.07.2017 through tax invoices. Towards the said purchase, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR the defendant had issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiff and the same were dishonoured on its presentation to the bank. In the meantime, the defendant had made payment of Rs.25,000/- towards the credit purchases through NEFT on 27.07.2018. The defendant thereafter, did not make payment to the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff had made several requests and reminders to the defendant for repayment of balance outstanding amount. Thereafter, he had issued legal notice dated 01.11.2018 to the plaintiff by calling upon him to pay the balance amount including accrued interest. As the defendant has failed to make payment of the amount even after receipt of legal notice, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount against the defendant before the Trial Court. 6. The suit was contested by the defendant denying the entire transactions mechanically without any substance. Further, the defendant contended that he made excess payment, however, the plaintiff himself has to pay a sum of Rs.51,960/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR 7. Having considered the rival contentions of the respective parties, the Trial Court raised the following five issues: i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in due of Rs.2,06,000/- for the delivery of the items to the defendant? ii. Whether the defendant proves that the quality of the goods supplied by the defendant are not upto the mark? iii. Whether defendant proves that he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? v. What order or decree? Additional issue: (i) Whether the defendant is entitled to the counter claim as sought in the written statement? 8. The Trial Court answered Issues No.1, 2, 4 and additional Issue No.1 in the negative and Issue No.3 in the affirmative. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court is that the plaintiff has not made out a case in order to prove issue No.1 because P.W.1 has not produced the documents to show that he is the Proprietor of the plaintiff-Industry and no pleadings is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR made out to maintain the accounts from the year 2013 which was not produced before the Court. Further, it is opined that in the absence of production of account, it is not necessary to infer that the defendant is liable to pay the amounts. Moreover, there is no pleadings with regard to Ex.Ps.9 and 10 - invoices. Having considered the said lacunae in the evidence of P.W.1, the Trial Court denied the claim of the plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to produce certain documents to substantiate his case. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2025, allowed I.A.No.1/2025 permitting to produce additional documents. It is needless to say that the respondent, even after receipt of notice issued by the Court, neither appeared personally nor engaged the services of the counsel to represent him. At this juncture, it is not appropriate to proceed with the case without considering the documents produced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, in order to render justice to the parties and also to uphold the constitutional mandates regarding - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22981 RFA No. 1352 of 2021 HC-KAR ‘fair trial’, it is appropriate to refer the documents for trial only restricted to the documents. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on the said documents in accordance with law and submit the report on the documents along with the evidence within three months from the date of receipt of this order. ii. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records along with additional documents for the purpose of trial forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30