IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.391/2019 (SC) BETWEEN:
M/S. HI TECH ELECTRONICS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.233/A 26TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE -560069 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. MANSOOR A K.
(BY SRI.KIRAN N, ADV.) AND:
M/S. RAJASHREE SALES CORP., PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING OFFICE AT NO.12, 1ST FLOOR M.T. STREET, BVK IYENGAR ROAD BANGALORE -560053.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. GOUTAMCHAND JAIN.
...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.15198/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Even though the revision is listed for hearing on I.A.No.2/2019 for condonation of 57 days delay in filing the revision petition, the petition is heard on merits as well as on the application and disposed of by this order.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed in S.C.No.15198/2017 on the file of the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru, by which the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and ordered that the plaintiff is directed to recover the decreetal amount with future interest at 18% on the principal amount of Rs.29,994/- from the date of suit till its realization. The defendant is in revision challenging the impugned judgment and decree.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.
4. Plaintiff claims that he is a wholesale dealer and defendant is the customer of the plaintiff, who had purchased electrical goods on credit basis in a sum of Rs.29,994/-. It is stated that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 30.12.2016 and was due in a sum of Rs.21,994/-. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the balance amount with interest at 24% p.a. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement he admitted the transaction of purchase of electronic goods worth Rs.29,994/- and also paying a sum of Rs.8,000/-. It is the contention of the defendant that the goods were defective and were malfunctioning. The defendant had reported the same to the plaintiff, but in spite of that he had not taken back the goods.
5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P6 and defendant examined himself as DW-1 and marked the document Ex.D1. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration :-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for claims the relief as prayed ?
2. What order or decree ?”
and answered point No.1 in partly affirmative. Aggrieved by the same the defendant is before this Court in revision.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant being the customer of the plaintiff had purchased electrical goods worth Rs.29,994/- and had paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- but was due in a sum of Rs.21,994/-. The defence of the defendant is that he had informed the plaintiff about the malfunctioning or returning of the goods, but there is no material to substantiate his contention. Even though defendant examined himself as DW-1 no document is placed on record to establish his contentions that goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and he had informed about the same. In the absence of any material the defendant’s contention cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced Exs.P1 to P5 – the Tax Invoice Bill and other documents, which indicates that the defendant was due in a sum of Rs.21,994/-. In the above circumstances, the Court below has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. There is no erroneousness or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms