IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.369/2017 BETWEEN ARIFUDDIN SHARIFF S/O M D ANWAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS INSPECTOR COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE-II A-BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FT. ROAD, RAJENDRA NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047.
NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND R/AT NO.3/A, IST MAIN, IST CROSS, MODI GARDEN, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560006. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P M NAYAK, ADV.) AND 1. VIJAYA BANK K.G.ROAD BRANCH, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER.
2. C JOSEPH HAZARIA S/O. S D CHANDRAKANTH C/O JOINT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL TAX P.T.11, 4TH FLOOR, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022. ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED IN MIS.PETITION NO.812/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.NO.27) BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION V/O 9 R 13 CPC FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2015 PASSED IN OS. NO.5184/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.NO.27) BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the condition imposed in the Order dated 01.08.2017 passed in Misc. No.812/2015 by the learned XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It is seen that the respondent bank had preferred a suit in O.S. No.5184/2014 for recovery of money against the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent herein.
3. In the said suit, the petitioner herein despite filing vakalath failed to appear before the Court and hence, an ex-parte Judgment and Decree came to be passed on 22.09.2015, whereby the suit of the plaintiff bank was decreed directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,741-00 along with interest. Thereafter, the defendants preferred miscellaneous petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2015 and to restore the suit to the original file.
4. The trial Court taking a considerate view, proceeded to allow the miscellaneous petition preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and restored the suit to its original file. While so allowing the miscellaneous petition, it has also deemed it prudent to put the 1st defendant i.e., the petitioner herein on terms as the suit is one for recovery of money and accordingly it directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,47,000-00.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the aforesaid direction is burdensome and that there is no sums due from the petitioner to the respondent bank. Be that as it may, it is seen that there has been a decree directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,741-00. In the light of the said fact, this Court is of the considered view that the conditional order passed in Misc. No.812/2015 directing the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,47,000-00 in fixed deposit for a period of two years and further holding that the said deposit shall accrue interest and the successful party is entitled to the said fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest is in no way onerous. Hence, the revision petition is not a fit case requiring for further consideration at the hands of this Court.
In the circumstances, the revision petition stands rejected.
Eight weeks’ time is granted to the revision petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Ksm*