Smt Kondamma vs Sri V Packeeraswamy
2024 Latest Caselaw 10258 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Kondamma vs Sri V Packeeraswamy on 10 April, 2024

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                         -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:14924
                                                    CRP No. 25 of 2016




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                  CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 25 OF 2016 (SC)
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SMT. KONDAMMA,
                  W/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH,
                  AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT SRIRAMA NILAYA,
                  ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD,
                  K.J.HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST,
                  BANGALORE - 560 015.
                                                         ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. SHANKARAIAH B.,ADVOCATE)

            AND:
            1. SRI. V. PACKEERASWAMY,
               S/O SRI VIDIYATHAR,
               AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by      RESIDING AT NO 42,
KIRAN
KUMAR R        JAGADAMBA KUTEERA, 2ND CROSS,
Location:
HIGH           VISWESWARAIAH LAYOUT, K.G.HALLI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA      BANGALORE - 560 015.
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI. NATARAJ B HALEMANE.,ADVOCATE)

                   VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2015 RFA 1290/2015 IN
            CONVERTED TO CRP 25/2016.CRP FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF
            THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., AGAINST THE
            JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED IN S.C
            NO.416/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
                                        -2-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:14924
                                                     CRP No. 25 of 2016




JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AND ETC.,

        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                  ORDER

This revision is filed challenging the decree passed by

the Trial Court by which the petitioner has been made

liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted the suit

seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alleging that

he had lent a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the

defendant/petitioner herein and she had executed a

promissory note.

3. The plaintiff examined himself apart from two

other witnesses to the promissory note. The

petitioner/defendant filed an affidavit in lieu of the

evidence but did not offer the person for cross-

examination. The respondent had also got the promissory

NC: 2024:KHC:14924

note referred to an handwriting expert who had submitted

the report but the said handwriting expert was also not

examined.

4. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the

respondent/plaintiff and in the absence of any evidence

from the petitioner/defendant has proceeded to decree the

suit, as against which, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant

submits that the petitioner could not offer the person for

cross-examination as she had fallen ill and, as a

consequence, she has suffered an adverse order. He

prays that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court

to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his

defence.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however,

strenuously objects and contends that adequate

opportunity was granted, but the same was not availed.

NC: 2024:KHC:14924

7. In light of the above, having regard to the fact

that the respondent did not offer the person for cross-

examination and the Trial Court has decreed the suit

essentially on this factor and also on the ground that the

Forensic Expert was not examined, it is appropriate to set

aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the

Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to afford an

opportunity to the petitioner/defendant for cross-

examination and to adduce any evidence that she would

so desire.

8. However, it would be necessary, in the interest of

justice to impose certain terms on the petitioner since the

claim of the petitioner/defendant is that she has been

made to litigate for the past 14 years.

9. The Petitioner shall therefore pay a sum of

Rs.20,000/- as costs to the respondent and shall also

subject herself to cross-examination on 18th June 2024.

She shall not take any further adjournment in the matter

of getting cross-examined and she shall adduce any

NC: 2024:KHC:14924

further evidence that she would so desire on or before 31st

July 2024. The Trial Court on the consideration of the

petitioner's evidence and any further evidence that she

adduces, shall proceed to decide the suit a fresh.

10. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order

passed by this Court a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been

deposited before this Court. It is ordered that out of the

said sum, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid out to the

respondent/plaintiff and remaining sum of Rs.40,000/-

shall be transferred to the Trial Court and the Trial Court

shall disburse the said amount depending on the decree

that may be passed.

11. Revision is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KVR