IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.311 OF 2017 BETWEEN SMT. KOMALA AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. SREEKANTESHWARA, NO.733, 22ND MAIN, 12TH CROSS, NEAR SHANKARANARAYAN REFRESHMENT, J.P.NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHISHIRA.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PALLAVA.R, ADVOCATE) AND SRI. DEEPU A.P. AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. PANDURANGA RAO, R/AT 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. ... RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2017 PASSED IN SC NO.2089/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH 16), DECREEING 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, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07-7-2017 in S.C.No.2089/2016 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, by which, the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest was decreed.
2. The petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in S.C.No.2089/2016 filed for recovery of money. The parties to this petition would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff states that he is the owner of Tata Thavera Cab bearing No.KA.05/AB.9965. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant regarding picking up and dropping the IT and Call center employees. The plaintiff was doing this work from last four years for the defendant, for which, the defendant used to pay Rs.40,000/- per month. Till August-2014, the plaintiff worked with the defendant as per the contract. The defendant was due for the months of July and August– 2014. The plaintiff demanded the said sum from the defendant, to which the defendant issued a cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sarakki Layout Branch, Bangalore in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned unpaid on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Even thereafter, the defendant failed to settle the amount, which made the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest.
4. On issuance of summons, the defendant appeared before the Court through an Advocate but failed to file the written statement and to participate in the proceedings.
5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-4. No evidence was lead on behalf of the defendant.
6. The trial Court on appreciating the material on record, decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- within one month, failing which, she shall pay 18% interest per annum thereon from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court in this revision petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that the trial Court failed to provide sufficient opportunity for the defendant to file her written statement. It is his further submission that the mother of the defendant was hospitalized from 30-5-2017 to 10-6-2017, as such, the defendant could not instruct her Counsel to file written statement.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to “whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit.”
Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
10. The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff states that he is the owner of Tata Thavera Cab bearing No.KA.05/AB.9965 and he had entered into an agreement with the defendant regarding picking up and dropping the IT and Call center employees, for which the defendant used to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. As the defendant had failed to pay the amount in respect of the months July and August–2014, the suit has been filed. The cheque issued by the defendant for Rs.80,000/- had been dishonored on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. The plaintiff marked the Cheque as Ex.P-1, Endorsement as Ex.P-2, Legal notice as Ex.P-3, postal acknowledgment as Ex.P-4. The contention of the defendant that she had no opportunity to file written statement, cannot be believed. The defendant was served with suit summons and an Advocate for the defendant had filed vakalath on 14-3- 2017. Subsequently, the suit was posted for filing written statement on 15-4-2017 and thereafter, continuously the defendant remained absent before the trial Court. The Medical Certificate produced by the defendant along with the revision petition is relating to her mother, who underwent replacement of right knee cap. The mother of the defendant was admitted to the Hospital on 29-5-2017 and she was discharged on 10-6-2017. Much prior to the admission of mother of the defendant to the Hospital the defendant had entered appearance in the suit through an Advocate and had failed to file written statement. The mother of the defendant was in hospital for about 10 days only. Hence, it is not open for the defendant to contend that she was not given sufficient opportunity to file written statement and contest the suit. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC requires the defendant to file written statement within 30 days and court could extend the time for filing written statement by another 60 days at the request of the defendant. In the instant case no such request is also not made.
No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Thus, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ