Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraj Shetty vs Sri. Gururaj Acharya on 9 October, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
RFA No. 1865 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2021 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGARAJ SHETTY
S/O RAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.47, DEVALKUND,
KUNDAPUR
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 230
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AKARSH SUDHAKAR KANADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GURURAJ ACHARYA
S/O NARASIMHA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT 100, 6TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS, MARANAHALLI
Digitally signed VIJAYANAGAR,
by
SHARADAVANI NEAR SARVAMANGALA APARTMENT
B
Location: High
BANGALORE - 560 040
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. SREEKANTHA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2021
PASSED IN OS.NO.10406/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
RFA No. 1865 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendant in O.S. No.10406/2015 is
directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated
03.03.2021 passed by the XXV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the
respondent - plaintiff against the appellant - defendant was
decreed by the trial Court directing the appellant - defendant to
pay a sum of ₹.2,24,000/- to the respondent - plaintiff together
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
suit till realisation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that
the respondent has instituted the aforesaid suit against the
appellant for recovery of a sum of ₹.2,24,000/- along with
interest at 12% per annum from the date of transaction till the
date of payment. The said suit having been contested by the
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
HC-KAR
appellant - defendant, the trial Court framed the following
issues -
" (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that at the request of
defendant and out of friendship, he has paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant in the month of
November 2012?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that for the repayment of
Rs.2,00,000/- the defendant has issued two cheques
as mentioned in para No.4 of the plaint ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate
of 12% per annum ?
(4) Whether the defendant proves that the chqeus shown
in the plaint are of stolen cheques as contended by
him in para No.9 of his written statement ?
(5) Whether the defendant proves the contents of para
No.11 and 12 of his written statement ?
(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
sought by him?
(8) What order or decree?"
4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one
witness as PW2 and documentary evidence at Exhibits P1 to P7
were marked. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and
documentary evidence at Exhibits D1 to D6 having been
marked, the defendant did not tender himself for cross-
examination and the same was discarded and eschewed from
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
HC-KAR
consideration pursuant to which the trial Court heard the
arguments of respondent - plaintiff and noted the absence of
the appellant - defendant and proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment and decree in favour of the respondent - plaintiff
against the appellant - defendant who is before this Court by
way of the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on
account of demise of the appellant's mother and due to the
prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant was not in a
position to tender himself for cross examination as DW1 and
also contest the suit further after his examination in chief was
recorded or address the arguments on merits. It is submitted
that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant -
defendant to contest the suit after his examination in chief was
recorded was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable
circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, it is necessary
that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial
Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -
plaintiff would support the impugned judgment and decree and
submit that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is, whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court warrants interference in the present
appeal ?
8. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that
various contentious issues and disputed questions of law and
facts arise for consideration between the parties as can be seen
from the material on record comprising of the pleadings of the
parties, issues and evidence on record. However, it is relevant
to state that the trial Court took note of the undisputed fact
that the appellant - defendant did not tender himself for cross-
examination and consequently eschewed/discarded his
evidence from consideration and proceeded to pass the
impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondent -
plaintiff against the appellant - defendant. Under these
circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
HC-KAR
the appellant that his inability and omission to tender himself
for cross-examination and contest the suit, subsequent to the
examination in chief being recorded was due to bona fide
reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and
due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and the demise of his
mother, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt justice oriented
approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the
appellant, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and
remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions in
this regard.
9. In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2021 is hereby set
side subject to the appellant paying a sum of ₹.15,000 (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) by way of cost to the respondent on the
date of their appearance before the trial Court.
10. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The appellant
and respondent undertake to appear before the trial Court on
03.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:39750
HC-KAR
The appellant is directed to tender himself for cross-
examination either on 03.11.2025 or any other date tobe fixed
by the trial Court.
11. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce
additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their
respective claims. The trial Court is directed to reconsider the
matter afresh and dispose of the suit in accordance with law
within a period of three months from 03.11.2025.
12. All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects
of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the
merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
13. The registry of this Court is directed to refund the
entire Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal back to the
appellant forthwith without any delay.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
YKL
CT-SG
