M/S Samudra Industry vs M/S Shivaganga Industries
2025 Latest Caselaw 6834 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6834 Kant
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2025

Karnataka High Court

M/S Samudra Industry vs M/S Shivaganga Industries on 30 June, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:22981
                                                               RFA No. 1352 of 2021



                     HC-KAR


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2021 (MON)
                    BETWEEN:
                    M/S SAMUDRA INDUSTRY
                    A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
                    NO. 52, KARNAD INDUSTRIAL AREA
                    MULKY, MANGALORE TALUK
                    DK DISTRICT 574 154
                    REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
                    SRI. P RAGHURAM
                    S/O. MADHAVA AITHAL
                    AGE 58 YEARS, R/AT MALEMAR
                    ARYAMARGA, ASHOKNAGAR
                    MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT 575 006             ... APPELLANT

                    (BY SRI. P VITTAL SHETTY., ADV.)
                    AND:
                        M/S SHIVAGANGA INDUSTRIES
                        PLOT NO. 325 (P) PHASE
                        KIADB INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
Digitally signed by
                        HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK
SREEDHARAN BANGALORE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112
SUSHMA LAKSHMI
                        REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRESS
Location: High Court of
Karnataka               SMT.CHAMPADEVI W/O. LATE. SHRAVAN
                        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS                     ... RESPONDENT

                         THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
                    THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2021 PASSED IN
                    OS.NO.8400/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
                    CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,      DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
                    RECOVERY OF MONEY.

                        THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                    JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

                    CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                                  -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:22981
                                                   RFA No. 1352 of 2021



HC-KAR



                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri. P. Vittal Shetty, learned counsel for the

appellant.

2. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained

absent.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree dated 10.06.2021 passed in O.S.No.8400/2018 on the

file of the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore wherein the

Trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of money.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he is the

manufacturer of water storage plastic tank and its accessories

and he is carrying on business at No.52, Karnad Industrial

Area, Mulky, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., District.

5. The defendant/respondent had approached the

plaintiff on 07.03.2013 and requested for a credit transaction

with the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff is in the business filed had

agreed to the proposal of the defendant. In the said business,

the defendant herein had purchased items on credit basis on

31.07.2017 through tax invoices. Towards the said purchase,

NC: 2025:KHC:22981

HC-KAR

the defendant had issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiff

and the same were dishonoured on its presentation to the

bank. In the meantime, the defendant had made payment of

Rs.25,000/- towards the credit purchases through NEFT on

27.07.2018. The defendant thereafter, did not make payment

to the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff had made several

requests and reminders to the defendant for repayment of

balance outstanding amount. Thereafter, he had issued legal

notice dated 01.11.2018 to the plaintiff by calling upon him to

pay the balance amount including accrued interest. As the

defendant has failed to make payment of the amount even

after receipt of legal notice, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery

of the outstanding amount against the defendant before the

Trial Court.

6. The suit was contested by the defendant denying

the entire transactions mechanically without any substance.

Further, the defendant contended that he made excess

payment, however, the plaintiff himself has to pay a sum of

Rs.51,960/-.

NC: 2025:KHC:22981

HC-KAR

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the

respective parties, the Trial Court raised the following five

issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in

due of Rs.2,06,000/- for the delivery of the items to the defendant?

ii. Whether the defendant proves that the quality of the

goods supplied by the defendant are not upto the mark?

iii. Whether defendant proves that he is not at all liable

to pay any amount to the plaintiff?

iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought

for?

v. What order or decree?

Additional issue:

(i) Whether the defendant is entitled to the counter claim as sought in the written statement?

8. The Trial Court answered Issues No.1, 2, 4 and

additional Issue No.1 in the negative and Issue No.3 in the

affirmative. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court is that the

plaintiff has not made out a case in order to prove issue No.1

because P.W.1 has not produced the documents to show that

he is the Proprietor of the plaintiff-Industry and no pleadings is

NC: 2025:KHC:22981

HC-KAR

made out to maintain the accounts from the year 2013 which

was not produced before the Court. Further, it is opined that in

the absence of production of account, it is not necessary to

infer that the defendant is liable to pay the amounts. Moreover,

there is no pleadings with regard to Ex.Ps.9 and 10 - invoices.

Having considered the said lacunae in the evidence of P.W.1,

the Trial Court denied the claim of the plaintiff.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant filed an

application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of

CPC seeking leave of the Court to produce certain documents to

substantiate his case. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2025,

allowed I.A.No.1/2025 permitting to produce additional

documents. It is needless to say that the respondent, even

after receipt of notice issued by the Court, neither appeared

personally nor engaged the services of the counsel to represent

him. At this juncture, it is not appropriate to proceed with the

case without considering the documents produced by the

learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, I am of the

considered opinion that, in order to render justice to the parties

and also to uphold the constitutional mandates regarding

NC: 2025:KHC:22981

HC-KAR

'fair trial', it is appropriate to refer the documents for trial only

restricted to the documents.

10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the

trial on the said documents in accordance with

law and submit the report on the documents

along with the evidence within three months

from the date of receipt of this order.

ii. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial

Court Records along with additional documents

for the purpose of trial forthwith.