Karnataka High Court
C S Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
CP No. 226 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL PETITION NO. 226 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
C.S. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O V. CHANDRASHEKAR,
R/AT NO.159, 2ND CROSS,
1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR,
JNANABHARATHI POST,
BANGALORE-560 056
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHEKAR L.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
signed by DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
KIRAN
KUMAR R VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Location:
HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA
2. M/S. YOGESH PHARMACEUTICALS,
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX.
SMT. SUDHA L.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O G.R. SRIKANTHRAJ,
NO.125/3, 1ST FLOOR,
C BLOCK, SRI BALAJI COMPLEX,
SULTANPET,
BANGALORE-560 053.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
CP No. 226 of 2020
3. DR. M.R. MOHAN
S/O RAMAKRISHANREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.B-105, 1ST FLOOR,
P.NO.24/2, BRIGADE PALM SPRINGS,
PUTTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
4. M/s. NANO PHARMA
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
C.S. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O V. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
C/O NANO HOSPITALS,
No. 29, KHATA No. 206/1,
MYANAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 76.
5. M/S. MEDIC STAR HOSPITAL
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
C.S. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O V. CHANDRASHEKAR
No. 17/1, ARUNOGHALAM ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. M/S. HEALTH INDIA PHARMA
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
C.S. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/o V. CHANDRASHEKAR
NO.7, 6TH CROSS,
TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
CP No. 226 of 2020
TAVAREKERE,
BENGALURU 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. D.G. CHINNAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. A.T. MANOHAR AND
SRI. UMASHANKAR G.S., ADVOCATES FOR R3)
THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIV RULE
1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO APPEAL
AND PROSECUTE THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT
DATED 27.05.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII ADDL.CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN OS 847/2017 AS INDIGENT
PERSON IN RFA 1718/2020 IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY,
JUSTICE AND LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to sue
as an indigent person.
2. The petitioner was the fourth defendant and he
was also the Proprietor and Managing Director of
defendant Nos.1 to 3. The suit was filed by the second
respondent seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.12,20,540/-
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
along with interest, contending that defendant Nos.1 to 4
had received pharmaceuticals, surgical disposals on credit
basis and had not repaid the same. The said suit has been
decreed.
3. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition
contending that he does not have the capacity or the
means to pay the court fee of Rs.80,475/-. A report was
obtained from the Tahsildhar regarding the financial status
of the petitioner. The report indicated that the petitioner
was residing in his father's house and was working in a
firm of his neighbor office friend and earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month. As indicated by the petitioner, the
report ultimately stated that the petitioner had an annual
income of Rs.1,20,000/- and he was residing in the house
of his father who is a retired postal department employee,
in a property measuring 30x40 comprising of three floors.
The petitioner has thereafter filed an Affidavit, during the
course of the enquiry, in which he has stated as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
"6. I submit on oath that I the proprietor of the
3 firms that have been held liable to pay the sum
by the trial court. The three firms, namely M/s.
Nano Pharma, M/s. Medic Star Hospital and
Health India Pharma, are no longer in business
in view of the losses suffered by the firms and
are closed sinc the year 2016."
4. As could be seen from para - 6, the petitioner
seeks to contend that he had three firms i.e., who are in
fact arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit and those
firms were no longer in the business, in view of the losses
occurred and they closed the same in the year 2016 itself.
The suit was admittedly filed in the year 2017. Though the
suit was filed in the year 2017, the defendant / the
petitioner did not take up the contention in the suit that
the firms were closed in the year 2016 itself.
5. The petitioner was subjected to cross-
examination and in the course of his cross-examination,
he has stated as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
"3. It is false to suggest then I had not stated
about sale of my business to Dr.M.R. Mohan and
the licenses are standing in his name in the trial
court. There are no pharmaceutical business in
my name as on today. On sale of M/s. Nano
Farma, I received Rs.28,00,000/- from Dr.M.R.
Mohan."
6. Thus as per this deposition, the petitioner
claims that he has sold his pharmaceutical businesses for
a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- to Dr.M.R. Mohan. The date of
the sale is not mentioned. As noticed above, it was not the
case of the petitioner before the trial court that he had
sold the business in the year 2016. As contended in his
Affidavit, since it is not mentioned in the written statement
that he sold his pharmaceutical businesses prior to the
filing of the suit, the statement made in the Affidavit
cannot be accepted. It is obvious from the deposition that
the claimant could have sold the businesses only after the
filing of the suit. Since the petitioner has received a sum
of Rs.28,00,000/- from Dr.M.R.Mohan towards sale of the
stock-in-trade and has suppressed this material in the
NC: 2024:KHC:45825
Affidavit filed by him, in my view he would not be entitled
to sue as an indigent person. Consequently, the petition is
dismissed.
7. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay
the court fees, failing which the appeal will stand
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
JJ
