Karnataka High Court
Sri H A Kiriti S/O H T Annaji vs Sri K Ravichander S/O M I K Swamy on 18 July, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2415 OF 2007 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI H A KIRITI
S/O H T ANNAJI
HINDU, AGED 33 YEARS
MANJUANTHA TRAVELS
SRI DURGA, K R PURAM
HASSAN -573 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S KRISHNASWAMY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI K RAVICHANDER
S/O M I K SWAMY
HINDU, AGED 47 YEARS
Digitally signed PROPRIETOR:SURYA BIOFUEL
by NO.8/1, JAYANTHI HOUSE
DHANALAKSHMI MYSORE ROAD, EAST ROAD
MURTHY BYATARAYANAPURA
Location: High BANGALORE-560 026
Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.S.SUDHIR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 29.08.2007 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5616/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-33), DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the
defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated
26.08.2007 passed by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-33) in
O.S.No.5616/2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff
has been decreed for a sum of Rs.62,500/- with interest at
6% per annum.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he and defendant
became good friends in the course of their business
transaction. Accordingly, in the month of June 2001, the
defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance
of Rs.62,500/- and agreed to repay the same within a
period of six months. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid cash of
Rs.62,500/- to the defendant on 10.06.2001 in the
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
presence of one S. Bheemasena Rao. The defendant did
not repay the amount even after 10.12.2001. After
repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant has
issued a cheque dated 15.12.2001 for a sum of
Rs.62,500/- drawn on SBM, Haralahalli Branch, Hassan in
the name of Surya Biofuel for which the plaintiff is the
proprietor and when the plaintiff presented the same in his
Bank at Bengaluru, it was dishonoured and returned on
26.12.2001 stating that the defendant has stopped the
payment. Since the defendant has not repaid the amount,
the plaintiff has issued notice on 30.03.2003 and
thereafter, he has field the suit for recovery of money.
4. On service of summons, the defendant appeared
through his counsel and filed written statement. At the
outset he contended that there is no cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru and the trial Court has
no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. He has admitted
that he has issued a cheque but denied that he borrowed
cash of Rs.62,500/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2001. The
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
cheque issued by the defendant is related to the business
transaction. Since the plaintiff expressed his inability to
supply the raw materials as agreed, the defendant issued
instructions to his bank to stop the payment of the
cheque. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial
Court has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on
10/06/2001 the defendant borrowed a sum of
Rs.62,500/- from the plaintiff in cash and agreed to
repay the said amount within 6 months?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant failed to pay the said amount when
demanded and the cheque issued by the defendant
was dishonoured when presented for encashment?
3. Whether the defendant proves that this court
has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
recovery of the suit claim as prayed for?
5. What decree or order?"
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
6. To prove the case, the plaintiff himself has been
examined as PW-1 and produced three documents as
Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the defendant, his father has
been examined as DW-1 as power of attorney and got
marked five documents as Exs.D1 to D5. On appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has
answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3
in negative and issue No.4 in partly affirmative and
decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the
defendant is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
defendant has contended that there is no cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of trial Court at Bengaluru.
The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
8. He contended that the defendant has specifically
denied that he has borrowed money from the plaintiff but
admitted that he has issued a cheque in favour of the
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
plaintiff for supply of raw material for the amount of
Rs.62,500/-. Since the plaintiff expressed his inability to
supply of raw materials, the defendant instructed his bank
to stop the payment of the cheque.
9. He further contended that the defendant owns more
than 100 acres of coffee estate in the Hassan District and
he is also carrying transport business. He has sufficient
funds in his Bank. Since the plaintiff has not supplied the
raw materials as agreed, the defendant has instructed his
bank to stop the payment of the cheque. The trial Court
has not framed any issue in respect of defense taken by
the defendant. The trial Court without considering the
material available on record, has erred in holding that the
defendant borrowed Rs.62,500/- from the plaintiff as hand
loan. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
10. None appears for the plaintiff / respondent.
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
11. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant /
appellant and perused the judgment and decree and also
original record.
12. It is not in dispute that the defendant has issued a
cheque dated 15.12.2001 for Rs.62,500/- drawn on SBM,
Haralahalli branch, Hassan. The case of the defendant is
that the cheque is issued on the assurance of the plaintiff
to supply the raw material. Since the plaintiff having
expressed his inability to supply the raw material, the
defendant issued instructions to the bank to stop the
payment of cheque in question. In spite of defendant
taking such a defense, the trial Court has not framed any
issue in respect of defense taken by the defendant but has
erred in granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
13. In view of the above, the matter requires to be
remitted back to the Trial Court to reconsider the matter
afresh. In respect of territorial jurisdiction is concerned,
since the transaction has taken place in Bengaluru, there
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
is a cause of action that arises to file the suit in Bengaluru.
Therefore, the trial Court has answered issue No.3 in the
negative.
14. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
a. The appeal is allowed.
b. The judgment and decree dated 26.08.2007
passed by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in
O.S.No.5616/2003, is set aside.
c. The matter is remitted back to the Trial
Court to reconsider the matter afresh in
accordance with law.
d. Liberty is reserved to the parties to adduce
additional evidence and produce additional
documents to establish their case.
15. The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court on 24.08.2023 without any further notice.
NC: 2023:KHC:24902
RFA No. 2415 of 2007
16. In view of Section 64 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and
Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the appellant is entitled for
refund of court fee paid by him.
17. Therefore, registry is directed to refund the court fee
in favour of the appellant / defendant, after due
verification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
