IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.436/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI JANARDHAN PROPRIETOR: DEEPU SWITCH GEARS, NO.66, GOVARDHAN GARDEN, OPP: DPSJC INDUSTRIAL AREA, YELACHENHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.C MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADV.(ABSENT)) AND:
M/S. ELCAB ENGINEERS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.177, 2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.
NOW AT 202, 4TH CROSS, 47TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560 018.
ASREPRESENTED BY SRI. BHARATESH.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.C SHANKAR REDDY, ADV.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, GAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2015 PASSED IN S.C.No.1331/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, SCCH-4, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER No representation for the petitioner in the morning as well as in the afternoon. Even on 04.11.2019, there was no representation for the petitioner in the morning as well as in the afternoon.
2. This revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2015 in S.C. No.1331/2012, by which, the suit claim of the plaintiff is allowed and defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.34,078/- with current and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in S.C.No.1331/2012. The portion to this petition would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff claims that he is a businessman dealing with electrical items and defendant is the customer who used to purchase the electrical materials from the plaintiff. The defendant failed to pay a sum of Rs.34,078/- as on 30.05.2012, due from him, towards purchase of electrical items. It is stated that the defendant had made part-payment of Rs.11,354/- vide cheque No.642828 dated 26.06.2012 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kanakapura Road Branch, Bangalore, which, on presentation was returned with shara “payment stopped” on 30.06.2012. The plaintiff states that as per books of accounts maintained by him, it shows that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs.34,078/-. In spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount, which resulted in issuance of legal notice dated 06.07.2012. In the reply, the defendant admits the purchase of materials and issuance of cheque, but states that he is due in a sum of Rs.5,000/- only.
5. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that after deducting the amount towards return of goods and the payments made, the defendant would be due in a sum of Rs.5,000/- only and also stated that he is ready to pay the admitted amount of Rs.5,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim.
6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3.
7. The trial Court, on appreciating of entire material on record decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.34,078/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization, within four months. Failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps as per law.
8. On going through the lower court records and the judgment under challenge, I find no material or jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the judgment and decree. The trial Court, after appreciating the material both documentary and oral evidence has come to the conclusion that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs.34,078/- to the plaintiff. At paragraph 29 of the judgment, the court below has observed that the defendant admitted in his cross-examination that he has maintained purchase and delivery books, but failed to produce the same before the Court. He has also stated in his evidence that he has credited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 30.05.2012 apart from issuing cheque dated 26.06.2012 for a sum of Rs.11,354/- and has admitted that he is due in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. When the stop payment made to the chqeue amount is Rs.11,354/- which is not made good, subsequently, the statement of the defendant that he is due in a sum of Rs.5,000/- only, cannot be believed. Moreover, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted and admittedly the cheque issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.11,354/- is returned with shara “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER”.
9. No ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
mpk/-* CT:bms Sd/- JUDGE