Karnataka High Court
Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Sri.H.S.Santosh on 3 September, 2022
-1-
CRP No. 100056 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100056 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
NO.380 7 379, HARIPRIYA COMPLEX,
4TH WARD, COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAPETE,
DIST:BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYITS MANAGER
SRI.SRI.RAVIKUMAR K. S/O NAGENDRAPPA K.
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:MANAGER,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
HOSAPETE BRANCH, HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH S HULMANI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.H.S.SANTOSH KUMAR S/O H K SATYANARAYANA RAO
AGE MAJOR, OCC:PROPRIETOR,
SHILPA GRAPHICS, DIGITAL FLEX PRINTING AND
RADIUM DECOR, NEAR HERO HONDA SHOWROOM
ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST:BELLARY
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DAYANAND BANDI.,ADVOCATE)
THIS REVISION PETITOIN IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF
THE CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSAPETE IN SMALL CAUSE SUIT
No.34/2016 DATED 02.01.2019.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
CRP No. 100056 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete in S.C.Suit No.24/2016.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. Petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are as under:
The plaintiff is the proprietor of Shilpa Graphics engaged in designing sign boards, digital flex printing and radium decoration. Defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of February 2015 for designing and installing a digital flex board of its office situated at college road, Hospet. After negotiation, the defendant assigned the above work to the plaintiff and the plaintiff designed the sign board as per the instructions and specification and sent it for prior approval of the defendant office. The -3- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 defendant given approval and plaintiff installed the said sign board at the defendant's office in the month of May, 2015. After completion of the work, the plaintiff placed the bill dated 19.12.2015 for Rs.76,300/-. The defendant went on postponing the payment of the bill for one or other reason. The plaintiff fed up with the delaying attitude of the defendant issued a legal notice dated 09.06.2016 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.76,300/- along with interest. The defendant instead of paying the amount has issued reply on 21.06.2016. The defendant did not pay the amount. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.86,693/- with future interest till realization of the said amount. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying entire material allegations of the plaintiff. Defendant has admitted that it has entrusted the work of designing and installing a digital flex board of its office. It is submitted that defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that the -4- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 work done was not satisfactory and sign board installed is not in accordance with their requirement and specifications. Further, the plaintiff used low quality material and demanded the plaintiff to install the sign board by following the specifications given by the defendant. It is further contended that plaintiff installed the board on non-working day in the absence of the defendant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The Manager of the defendant-bank examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D5. The trial court after recording the evidence and considering the material on record held that plaintiff has proved that he is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.86,693/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the defendant towards credit bill dues and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant-bank being aggrieved by the judgment and -5- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 decree passed in the aforesaid suit has filed this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that plaintiff did not carry out the work as per the terms of the contract. He submits that the work done by the plaintiff is not satisfactory and the sign board installed is not in accordance with their requirements and specifications. He submits that the plaintiff installed the board on non- working day in the absence of the defendant. He submits that since the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the said amount. On these grounds, he prays to allow the revision petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has carried out the work as per the specifications given by the defendant. He submits that -6- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 though the sign board was installed in the month of May, 2015, the defendant has not raised any objection till the plaintiff submitted a bill. The defendant has raised objection only when the plaintiff submitted a bill. He submits that the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed in the suit. He submits that the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
8. Heard, perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that would arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has installed the sign board of the defendant-bank as per the terms of the contract?
ii) Whether the defendant-bank prove that judgment and decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary and erroneous and call for interference by this court?-7-
CRP No. 100056 of 2019
9. It the case of the plaintiff that defendant-bank has entrusted the work of installation of sign board to the plaintiff. As per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff has installed the sign board in the month of May, 2015 and submitted a bill for payment. The defendant-bank after receiving bill has raised objection contending that plaintiff has not carried out the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the entire averments of the plaint in his chief-examination. Defendant-bank examined his manager as D.W.1 and he re-iterated the averments made in the written statement. He admitted that defendant-bank has assigned the work of installation of sign board to the plaintiff. It is also admitted that defendant-bank is situated in prime locality, no one can enter into their premises even on Sundays without their permission. Defendant-bank has employed security person and if anybody enter the bank premises, he will -8- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 inform us. He also admits that plaintiff has sent the quotation to their head office on 28.12.2015.
10. From perusal of the evidence of the parties, one thing is clear that plaintiff has installed the sign board in the month of May, 2015. Even according to the contention of the defendant that, it is installed on non-working day, on the next working day, the official of the defendant has not raised any objection in regard to installation of the sign board by the plaintiff. Further, the sign board was installed in the month of May, 2015. The defendant has not raised any objection in regard to violation of requirements and specifications contract. Hence, the plaintiff submits that only when the plaintiff submitted bill on 28.12.2015, the defendant-bank raised objection stating that sign board is not in accordance with the terms of the contract. The defendant-bank having taken the benefit of the installation of the sign board for more than six months, now the defendant-bank cannot take 'U' turn and say that the sign board is not in accordance with the -9- CRP No. 100056 of 2019 terms of the contract. Further, the defendant-bank has not put forth any proof the actual requirement and actual violation of the specifications as ascertained in the written statement. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) the trial Court after considering the entire material on record was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.(ii) in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The civil revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS