Sri Hanumanth vs Smt Jayamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1578 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                        CRP No. 373 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                         CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 373 OF 2021


                 BETWEEN:

                 SRI HANUMANTH
                 S/O. HONRAPPA,
                 AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
                 R/AT NO.148, MLA COLONY,
                 R.T. NAGAR,
                 BENGALURU-560 032.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 SMT. JAYAMMA
                 W/O. SRI MANJANNA,
                 AGED MAJOR,
Digitally
                 R/AT GOLLARAHALLI MYLAKABBI VILLAGE,
signed by R
HEMALATHA
                 THIMMANAHALLI POST,
Location: High   TUMKUR-572 214.
Court of
Karnataka                                                      ...RESPONDENT
                 (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

                       THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSE
                 COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED
                 IN S.C.NO.1004/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
                 COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
                 RECOVERY OF MONEY.

                      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
                 COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                           CRP No. 373 of 2021




                             ORDER

Petitioner herein had filed a suit in S.C.No.1004/2020, for recovery of Rs.1,25,810/- from the defendant contending that, the defendant having borrowed the said amount, and in spite of several demands refused to pay the said amount.

2. Though the defendant was served with notice, remained absent, and the Trial Court after recording evidence of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not placed sufficient material to substantiate the claim that the defendant had borrowed loan from the plaintiff.

3. The respondent though served with notice has not chosen to appear either personally or through her counsel.

4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The plaintiff to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1, and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the statement of account, which indicates that, the amount of Rs.1,25,810/- was transferred to the bank account of the defendant.

6. The Trial Court without recording any finding as to why the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the plaintiff cannot be believed which has remained unchallenged has passed the impugned order, and the same is not sustainable in law.

CRP No. 373 of 2021

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Civil revision petition is allowed

ii) The impugned order dated 3.9.2021, passed by the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1004/2020 is hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remanded to the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, to examine the evidence on record and therefore pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

iv) Parties to appear before the Court of Small Causes on 20.03.2023, without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR