Karnataka High Court
Sri M Chandrashekara vs Sri Gurusiddarameshwara ... on 12 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24046
CRP No. 312 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 312 OF 2022 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNAVALI HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
PINCODE-572 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GURUSIDDARAMESHWARA
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T SAMUDAYA BHAVANA
Location: HIGH B.H. ROAD, ARASIKERE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
PINCODE-573 103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL
CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2022
PASSED IN S.C.NO.12/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24046
CRP No. 312 of 2022
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order
dated 02.06.2022 passed in S.C.No.12/2015 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.19,000/- which was paid
for booking the kalyana mantapa viz., Sri
Gurusiddarameshwara Samudaya Bhavana i.e., the respondent
herein.
3. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that an
advance amount of Rs.19,000/- was paid to book the
respondent-Sri Gurusiddarameshwara Samudaya Bhavana and
marriage was to be performed on 05.10.2013 and 06.10.2013.
It is also contended that the plaintiff came to know that
marriage date is fixed during pithrupaksha, during which time,
no marriage is performed as per Hindu Religion. Hence,
requested to cancel the booking.
NC: 2023:KHC:24046
CRP No. 312 of 2022
4. The Trial Court, having considered the material
available on record, particularly the admission elicited from the
mouth of the witness P.W.1 and he categorically admitted that
choultry was booked five months earlier to the date of marriage
and he also admitted that it was cancelled in the month of
September, 2013. The witness also categorically admitted that
on the very same day, marriage was performed in Guruleela
Kalyana Mantapa, Tipaturu. Hence, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the very contention of the plaintiff that
marriage date is fixed in pithrupaksha and marriage could not
be performed cannot be accepted.
5. Having taken note of the admission of the witness
P.W.1 in the cross-examination, extracted the same in Para
No.14 of the judgment and having considered the admission in
Para No.15, the Trial Court discussed in detail regarding the
same. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision and
the order passed by the Trial Court do not suffer from any
illegality considering the material available on record,
particularly the admission elicited from the mouth of the
witness P.W.1 and hence, the very contention of the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
NC: 2023:KHC:24046
CRP No. 312 of 2022
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
