IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.48 OF 2015 Between:
M/s. Itlogix Integrated Systems Pvt. Ltd.
No.49/1-, 1st floor, D Block Idustrial Suburb, MEC Road Yeshwanthpura Bangalore - 560 022 Represented by its Authorized signatory (by Shri S. Visweswaraiah, Advocate) And:
Sri Vishal Aged about 38 years S/o Late B Shantilal Proprietor of M/s. Vishal Marketing No.19, 13th Cross Cubbonpet Bangalore – 560 002 …Petitioner ...Respondent This CRP is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 passed in SC No.673 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM (SCCH 9) 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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The sole respondent having been served, he has chosen to remain unrepresented. Admit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly the Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. This Revision Petition arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 26th September, 2014 passed in SC No.673 of 2013 by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, Bangalore decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant.
4. The respondent instituted a suit in SC No.673 of 2013 against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.89,967/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the petitioner and for other reliefs. The petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement inter alia contending that the petitioner had paid the amount due by him to the respondent through cheques and that consequently the false and frivolous claim of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected. It was also contended in the written statement that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked on his behalf. Despite having filed its written statement contesting the suit, the defendant did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant also did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on its behalf.
6. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court below came to conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff had remained un-impeached, un-controverted and unchallenged inasmuch as the petitioner-defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff or impeach the documents produced by him. The Court below also drew adverse inference against the petitioner for not entering the witness box apart from failing to lead any evidence in support of the defence put-forth by him. The Court below also came to the conclusion that having regard to the material on record, the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, and consequently, even this defence urged on behalf of the defendant, was liable to be rejected. The Court below came to the conclusion that since the transaction in question was a commercial transaction under the Sale of Goods Act, the defendant was liable to pay interest at 12% per annum to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the Court below, by the impugned judgment and order, partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below, the defendant has preferred this Revision Petition.
8. As stated above, despite having received notice of this Revision Petition, the respondent has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest this Revision Petition. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner having filed its written statement has a valid and tenable defence to urge on its behalf. It is also contended that the petitioner was not in a position to either cross-examine the plaintiff or impeach the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff due to unavoidable circumstances which came in the way of the petitioner adducing any evidence in support of the defence put-forth by it. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was his specific defence that the amount payable to the plaintiff had already been paid by the petitioner by way of cheques and that the materials evidencing payments would be produced if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to substantiate its defence. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner would be in a position to substantiate the other defences urged by it in its written statement, if an opportunity is given to it to cross-examine PW1 as well as lead oral and documentary evidence on its behalf.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials on record. A perusal of material on record would indicate that there was a specific defence put-forth by the petitioner that it had already paid the amount payable to the plaintiff by way of cheques. However, in view of the fact that the defendant did not choose to cross- examine the plaintiff and also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on its behalf, the Court below disbelieved the defence put-forth by the defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As stated supra, the respondent-plaintiff has remained unrepresented and has chosen not to contest this Revision Petition. The petitioner has submitted that if an opportunity is granted to substantiate its evidence, it will be in a position to adduce evidence in support of its defence as well as cross- examine the plaintiff.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and by adopting the justice- oriented approach, it is necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and also to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of its defence. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent has had the benefit of the impugned judgment and order, it is essential that the petitioner has to compensate the respondent in this regard. Under the circumstance, I pass the following order.
1. Revision Petition is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26th September, 2014 passed in SC No.673 of 2013 by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, Bangalore is hereby set aside.
2. Matter is remitted to the Court below to enable the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 and also adduce both oral and documentary evidence on its behalf.
3. It is made clear that the respondent- plaintiff would also be entitled to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support his claim, in addition to the evidence already adduced by him.
4. Petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent towards cost, in the court below.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, this Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn