IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P.No.246/2019 BETWEEN:
G. SATHISH KUMAR S/O GANESH RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROPRIETOR, DE-IRON SYSTEMS NO.40/B/6, NARAYANAPURA ROAD II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU- 560 058.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. YOGESH L.J., ADV.) AND:
MR. JAYAKUMAR PROPRIETOR M/S. GANGA FILTERS AND TRADERS H.NO.6-3-855, SADAT MANZIL LANE OPP. GREEN PARK HOTEL AMMERPET HYDERABAD-560 016.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADV.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.1267/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, AND XXII A.C.M.M. BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2019 passed in S.C.No.1267/2018 on the file of 24th Additional Small Causes Judge and 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is defendant in S.C.No.1267/2018 filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,48,071/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization. The plaintiff states that he is the Proprietor of M/s.De-Ion systems carrying on business of water and waste water treatment system for industrial applications. Defendant is one of the customers of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had supplied water treatment material to the defendant during the year 2012-13, vide Invoice Nos.359, 449, 505 dated 04.06.2012, 22.06.2012 and 03.07.2012 respectively, amounting to Rs.5,97,006/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to furnish ‘C' Forms which is to be submitted for Commercial Tax Department. Subsequently, the Commercial Tax Department raised demands for Rs.1,48,071/- for which, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant has paid the entire amount of Rs.5,97,006/- for the materials supplied under the invoices stated above.
3. The defendant remained absent before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The trial Court, on analyzing the material placed before it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the material on record, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any material or jurisdictional error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had supplied water treatment materials to the defendant in the year 2012-13 under invoices dated.04.06.2012, 22.06.2012 and 03.07.2012 for a total sum of Rs.5,97,006/-. It is admitted that the defendant had paid the entire amount to the plaintiff. But, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had not furnished ‘C' forms for submission of the same to the Commercial Tax Department. Subsequently, Commercial Tax Department raised demands for Rs.1,48,071/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant is liable to make good the said amount of tax demanded by the Commercial Tax Department. The plaintiff has not placed any material on record to show that the said tax demand was in relation to the material supplied to the defendant under invoices dated 04.06.2012, 22.06.2012 and 03.07.2012. Further, the plaintiff cannot contend that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs.1,48,071/- when he has paid the entire amount for the materials supplied by the plaintiff. No material is also placed on record to establish that there was an agreement between them, in case Commercial Tax Department raises demand to make good the same by defendant. Thus, there is no evidence on record to establish that the defendant was due in a sum of Rs.1,48,071/- to the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit.
6. The plaintiff has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree which is neither perverse nor erroneous. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms