M/S Shreya Printers vs M/S Bhatkal Agricultural And
2022 Latest Caselaw 10069 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.475 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

M/S. SHREYA PRINTERS
SUPRABATHA, 5TH CROSS ROAD
HAYAGREEVA NAGAR, INDRALI
UDUPI-2 AND HAVING ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BEST CO.
COMPLEX, MARUTHI VEETIKA
UDUPI-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNERS - 572 101

1.    MRS.PRABHA
      B.PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
      W/O. LATE P.BHASKAR PRABHU AND

2.    P.NAGARAJA PRABHU
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
      S/O. LATE P.BHASKAR PRABHU.      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.S.K.ACHARYA., ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S BHATKAL AGRICULTURAL AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE
BHATKAL UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 572 301
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
                                    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.DEEPASHRI, ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI.R.NAGENDRA NAIK., ADVOCATE)
                                 2




    THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION                          18    OF
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT.

     THIS CRP COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Sri.S.K.Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner and

Smt.Deepashree, learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, for respondent have appeared in

person.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

M/s.Shreya Printers being the Plaintiff initiated

action against M/s.Bhatkal Agricultural and Rural

Development Co-Operative Bank LTD., for recovery of

money for a sum of Rs.14,310/- (Rupees Fourteen

Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) at the rate of 12%

p.a., contending that it is a printing press running through

its partners and the defendant had placed orders for

printing ten thousand deposit certificates vide tax

invoice/credit bill No.5859 dated:02.10.2010 which was

sent to the Bank vide Delivery Note No.632,

dated:04.10.2010.

It is stated that on account of the demand made by

the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty thousand only) through its cheque

dated:18.10.2020 bearing No.447678 which has been

enchased by the plaintiff. Despite the demand and

reminder letters, the balance amount of Rs.14,310/-

(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only)

was unpaid. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a

legal notice and the same was accepted by the defendant.

It is averred that even after the acceptance of

notice, the balance amount was unpaid by the defendant.

Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in

S.C.No.10/2012 seeking a decree for recovery of

Rs.14,310/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred

and Ten only). The defendant entered appearance but did

not file written statement. The suit went to trial. The Trial

Court framed two issues for its consideration. The suit

came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree

dated:03.08.2016. Hence, plaintiff has filed this Revision

Petition on several grounds as set out in the Revision

Petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent

have urged several contentions.

5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the records with care.

6. The sole question for consideration is whether

the dismissal of the suit is justified?

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a printing

press and the defendant - Bank had placed orders for

printing ten thousand deposit certificates .

The defendant entered appearance but he did not

present the written statement.

The plaintiff filed the following documents.

1. Photostat copy of the tax Invoice/credit bill dated 02.10.2010.

2. Photostat copy of the delivery Note dated:04.10.2010.

       3. Photostat        copy       of    the      cheque
           dated:18.10.2010.

Suffice it to note that the transaction between the

parties is admitted. The defendant paid a sum of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) pertaining to

the delivery note No.632 which has been enchased

through bank. The defendant neither denied the

transaction nor the claim. But the Trial Court failed to take

note of the same and has erroneously proceeded to

dismiss the suit .

I have perused the judgment of the Trial Court with

utmost care. As could be seen from paragraph 10 of the

judgment, learned judge has concluded that only invoice

copy is placed hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The judgment of the Trial Court is cryptic and learned

judge has not considered the evidence of the plaintiff in a

proper perspective. The learned judge has failed to assign

reasons for the dismissal of the suit.

I may venture to say that the suit could not have

been decided the way it was. The non-consideration of

material evidence on record has occasioned grave

injustice. The Trial Court has failed to have regard to

relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.

In my considered opinion, the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law. The

judgment and decree dated:03.08.2016 passed by the

Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Udupi in S.C.No.10/2012 is set-

aside.

Resultantly, the suit is decreed with cost. The

defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,310/- (Rupees

Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) along

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

suit till the realization.

The revision petition is allowed

The Registry concerned to draw the decree.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GVP