Bangalore District Court
Shanti Devi Kanunga vs Kamalesh on 7 January, 2026
1 O.S.No.3859/2023
Judgment
KABC010158292023
IN THE COURT OF LIX ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.NO.60)
Dated this 7th day of January 2026
: Present :
Sri. SOMASHEKARA A., B.A.L., LL.M.,
XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY.
C/c LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S. No. 3859/2023
Plaintiff/s 1 Smt.Shanti Devi Kanunga
W/o Gutham Kanunga
Aged about 47 years
Proprietor of Rishab Enterprises
Having its office at
No.65/194, 10th Cross, 4th Main,
Kaveripuram, Kamakshipalyam
Bengaluru
Rep by her SPA holder
Sri.Goutham Kanunga
S/o Nainmal Kanunga
Aged about 49 years
R/at No.65/194, 10th Cross,
4th Main, Kaveripuram,
Kamakshipalyam Bengaluru
(BY Sri.S.C.K. Advocate)
Judge Sign
2 O.S.No.3859/2023
Judgment
V/s
Defendant/s :- 1 Mr.Kamalesh
S/o Kesaram
Aged about 30 years
Proprietor & Authorized Signatory
M/s Bhavani Industries
No.38, Nalini Estate,
Seegehalli Gate,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru
2 Mr.Kesaram
Aged about 60 years
Authorized Signatory
M/s Bhavani Industries,
No.38, Nalini Estate, Seegehalli Gate,
Magadi main Road,
Bengaluru
3. M/s Bhavani Industries
Rep by its Proprietor
& Authorized Signaotry
Sri.Kamalesh and Sri.Kesaram
No.38, Nalini Estate,
Seegehalli Gate,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru
(By Sri.C.P. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 21.06.2023
Nature of the Suit (suit for :
pronote, Suit for declaration and Money Suit
possession, Suit for injunction,
etc.)
Judge Sign
3 O.S.No.3859/2023
Judgment
Date of the commencement of : 11.02.2025
recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was :
pronounced 07.01.2026
Total duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s
16 06 02
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.2,37,463/- along with interest.
2. The brief and admitted factual background may be stated as follows:
The Plaintiff is in dealer in P.V.C. Resin Dana and she is running a business under the name and style of "Rishab Enterprises", and defendants have also doing business under the name and style of the "M/s Bhavani Industries," they are the customer of Plaintiff. The defendants have doing a business with Plaintiff on credit basis, on that guise, during the of the year 2021 defendants approached Plaintiff and posing to be as the prospective Judge Sign 4 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment buyer and wanted to buy the materials from plaintiff on credit basis. During beginning month of July 2022 defendants succeeded to convinced Plaintiff to part their valuable materials on credit basis and accordingly defendants are started business with Plaintiff since 2021. As per the terms and conditions, defendants are requested to Plaintiff, will pay the amount within 30 days from the date of the Invoice.
3. The Plaintiff further stated that the defendants use to purchase the new materials of P.V.C. Resin Dana from her on credit basis, so that she agreed to Sale the material to defendants and when the transaction continue with her, the defendants have purchased the materials from her for that Invoice is Raised form 04.07.2022 to 06.08.2022. Accordingly defendants have purchased materials in total sum of Rs.2,37,463/- materials, at that time defendants have requested with plaintiff and assured that due amount would be clear within 30 days from the date of the Invoice, i,e., Invoices Dates, Number and Amount as follows.
Judge Sign 5 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment Sl. No. Invoice date Invoice number Invoice Amount (Rs)
1. 04.07.2022 845 46,940.00
2. 12.07.2022 860 49,702.00
3. 29.07.2022 869 44,179.00
4. 02.08.2022 894 46,940.00
5. 06.08.2022 896 49,702.00 Total 2,37,463.00
4. After lapse of the due days, the plaintiff approached defendants and demanded for repayment of the entire Invoice due amount of Rs.2,37,463.00/-. But the defendants have kept postponing the same on one or other pretext. Therefore, the plaintiff is suffering from huge loss and economic crisis along with mental and physical stress. Having no other alternative has issued legal notice to the defendants dated 13.03.2023 but the same was returned with shara "Unclaimed and intimation delivered".
5. After few days the defendants was called to plaintiff, had requested to plaintiff, some family problem cannot arrange the invoice due amount and requested to plaintiff within 20 days will arrange amount then plaintiff agreed the same after 20 days plaintiff was demanded to defendants clear the legal liability. But the Judge Sign 6 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment defendants did not headed the request of the plaintiff. Thereforehaving no other alternative again plaintiff was approached to Kamashipalya Police they also not taken any action against the defendants, The defendants are liable to pay an Invoice due amount of Rs.2,37,463.00/- along with interest to the plaintiff as the transaction is commercial one. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to interest pendentelite till realization of the amount. Hence, this suit.
6. Upon serving the summons, the defendants have appeared before the court and filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the Defendants. The Defendant No.1 is the proprietor of the Defendant concern ie., M/s Bhavani Industries and Defendant No.2 stating that is the authorized signatory, but the Defendant No.2 is the father of the Defendant No.1 he used to sit in the Defendant No.3 industry during the absence of the Defendant No.1, wherein the Defendant No.2 is not the authorized signatory and he does not have any position in the factory nor he receive the goods nor he had placed any orders for purchase of goods or supply of goods. The Plaintiff has Judge Sign 7 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment unnecessarily made the Defendant No.2 as a party to the above suit with an intention to harass him.
7. The suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable since the Plaintiff Smt. Shanthidevi Kanunga wife of Goutham Kanunga is very much alive and she is the proprietorix of the Plaintiff firm and she has filed the suit before this Hon'ble court instead she has executed SPA in favour of Goutham Kanunga and filed this suit before this Hon'ble court. He has denied the entire averments mentioned in the plaint. The Defendant No.1 was the customer of the Plaintiff earlier and used to purchase the goods as and when required by him and due to some misunderstanding the Defendant No.1 stopped to purchase the goods from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and their men on several occasions have visited the Defendant No.3 concern and requested him to purchase the goods from the Plaintiff for that the Defendant No.1 has not shown any interest and refused to purchase the goods. In this regard the Plaintiff has falsely created the documents and filed this frivolous suit against the Defendants with an intention to illegally extract money from them. The suit filed by the Judge Sign 8 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment plaintiff is devoid of merits and there is no substance in the same. The Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. Therefore, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit.
8. Based on these conflicting pleadings, my predecessor in office was pleased to formulate the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have purchased materials of Rs.2,37,463/- under various invoices from 04.07.2022 to 06.08.2022 as pleaded?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim from the defendants?
3) What order?
9. In order to prove the aforesaid issues, the SPA holder of plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW-1 and got marked 16 document as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW-1 and no documents are got marked.
10. Heard the arguments on both sides, perused oral and documentary evidence.
Judge Sign 9 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment
11. My answer to the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
12. ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2: Since both these issues are inter- connected and arise out of the same set of facts, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
13. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the proprietor of Rishab Enterprises dealing in PVC Resin Dana and that the defendants, who are running M/s Bhavani Industries, purchased materials from her on credit basis and failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.2,37,463/- despite repeated demands and issuance of legal notice. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff has examined her SPA holder as PW-1, who has reiterated the plaint averments on oath. PW-1 has produced documentary evidence marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16.
Judge Sign 10 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment
14. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW-1. Ex.P.2 is the authorization letter. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 are tax invoices dated between 04.07.2022 and 06.08.2022, clearly showing supply of PVC Resin Dana to M/s Bhavani Industries, invoice numbers, quantities, rates, and amounts aggregating to Rs.2,37,463/-. Ex.P.15 is the outstanding statement corroborating the unpaid balance. Ex.P.16 is the GST certificate of the plaintiff firm, establishing the commercial nature of the transaction.
15. These documents are contemporaneous business records maintained in the ordinary course of business. The invoices specifically mention the name and address of Defendant No.3 concern. During cross-examination, nothing material has been elicited to discredit the genuineness of these invoices.
16. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1. Though DW-1 has taken a plea that the invoices are fabricated, no documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the defendants to substantiate such allegation. It is a Judge Sign 11 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment settled principle of law that mere denial without proof carries no evidentiary value.
17. The contention of Defendant No.2 that he is unnecessarily impleaded also does not hold water. The evidence on record discloses that Defendant No.2 was actively involved in the business affairs of Defendant No.3 concern and was dealing with the plaintiff. In commercial transactions, persons who hold themselves out as being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business cannot later escape liability by taking technical pleas.
18. The plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 13.03.2023 under Ex.P.8. The postal receipts and returned covers marked as Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.14 show that the notice was sent to the correct address of the defendants and returned with the endorsement "Unclaimed / Intimation Delivered". In law, such service amounts to deemed service, and the defendants cannot take advantage of their own avoidance.
19. Upon careful and holistic consideration of the oral testimony of PW-1, recorded on multiple dates, read conjointly with Judge Sign 12 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment the pleadings and the documents referred to therein, the following appreciation is made:
20. PW-1 is the plaintiff himself and therefore an interested witness. However, being the person who asserts direct knowledge of the transaction, possession, and alleged cause of action, his testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground of interest. The law is well settled that evidence of an interested witness, if otherwise cogent, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, can safely be relied upon.
21. In his chief-examination, PW-1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He has spoken in detail about his relationship with the defendants, the nature of the transaction between the parties, the payment of amounts, and the circumstances under which the dispute arose. PW-1 has specifically deposed regarding the dates of transaction, the quantum of money involved, and the assurances allegedly given by the defendants. His version, as reflected in the affidavit evidence, is coherent and broadly aligns with the pleadings in the suit.
Judge Sign 13 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment
22. During cross-examination, PW-1 has been subjected to detailed questioning. Certain suggestions were put to him disputing the nature of the transaction and the alleged liability of the defendants. Though PW-1 has admitted some collateral facts, such as prior acquaintance and certain surrounding circumstances, no material contradiction has been elicited so as to demolish the core of his case. Importantly, no admission has been extracted which would negate the existence of the transaction or render the plaint version inherently improbable.
23. A reading of the evidence as a whole shows that PW-1 has remained substantially consistent on material particulars. Minor variations, if any, are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. His testimony does not suffer from inherent improbabilities or contradictions which would render it unworthy of belief. The defence has failed to demonstrate that PW-1's evidence is either fabricated or motivated by extraneous considerations.
24. Though PW-1 is an interested witness, his evidence finds support from the surrounding circumstances spoken to in his Judge Sign 14 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment deposition, including the sequence of events, conduct of parties, and contemporaneous acts referred to during his testimony. The defence has not placed any convincing material to probabilise an alternative version contrary to the testimony of PW-1.
25. On an overall evaluation, the evidence of PW-1 inspires confidence to the extent it relates to the foundational facts pleaded in the suit. His testimony, read as a whole and tested on the anvil of cross-examination, cannot be brushed aside. It is entitled to due weight, subject of course to appreciation along with other oral and documentary evidence on record at the stage of final adjudication.
26. Accordingly, the evidence of PW-1 is held to be relevant, admissible, and worthy of consideration, and the same materially advances the case of the plaintiff, subject to corroboration from the remaining evidence on record.
27. On careful appreciation of the oral evidence of DW-1, as borne out from the affidavit filed in O.S.No.3859/2023 and read in Judge Sign 15 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment conjunction with the pleadings and documents relied upon, the following assessment is made:
28. DW-1 is the defendant himself and is therefore an interested witness. His evidence necessarily requires cautious scrutiny, particularly where it seeks to directly negate the plaintiff's case and justify the defendant's conduct. While the testimony of an interested witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground, it must inspire confidence and be corroborated by reliable documentary material.
29. In his affidavit evidence, DW-1 has primarily sought to justify the business transactions and financial dealings referred to in the suit, placing reliance on GST registration, GST invoices, and accounting particulars. He has asserted that the invoices were validly generated in the regular course of business and that GST amounts were duly reflected and accounted for. He has also referred to specific invoice numbers and amounts, including figures running into several lakhs, to contend that the transactions were genuine and lawful.
Judge Sign 16 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment
30. A close reading of the affidavit shows that the evidence of DW-1 is largely self-serving and assertive in nature. The witness reiterates his version of events without placing before the Court primary, independent material to conclusively establish that the invoices were supported by actual delivery of goods/services or corresponding consideration. Mere reference to GST invoices, without production of complete books of accounts, supporting vouchers, or proof of underlying transactions, weakens the probative value of such assertions.
31. While DW-1 has relied upon GST invoices and registration particulars, it is well settled that compliance with tax formalities by itself does not conclusively prove the genuineness of the underlying civil transaction in dispute. The affidavit does not disclose whether the original invoices, returns, or reconciled statements were produced and proved in accordance with law. In the absence of such corroboration, the evidence remains incomplete and insufficient to dislodge the plaintiff's case.
Judge Sign 17 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment
32. Significantly, DW-1 has not examined any independent witness, such as an accountant, auditor, or third party to the alleged transactions, to support his version. The evidence thus rests solely on his own statement, which, being interested, cannot be accepted at face value without corroboration.
33. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence of DW-1 does not attain the standard of reliability required to conclusively prove the defence set up by him. The testimony is general, justificatory, and unsupported by cogent independent evidence. Consequently, while the affidavit explains the defendant's stand, it falls short of proving the same on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the evidence of DW-1 is held to be of limited evidentiary value and is insufficient to outweigh the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff.
34. The transaction between the parties is admittedly commercial in nature. The defendants have enjoyed the benefit of goods supplied by the plaintiff and failed to discharge their Judge Sign 18 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment corresponding legal obligation to pay the price. The plaintiff has successfully proved: supply of goods, raising of invoices, existence of legally recoverable debt, and default by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim with interest. With these I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
35. ISSUE No.3 - For the reasons stated above and in view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,37,463/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three only).
The defendants shall further pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Judge Sign 19 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment the said amount from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist, typed by him directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of January 2026.) (SOMASHEKARA. A) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF :-
P.W.1 :- Goutham Kanunga Judge Sign 20 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P1 Certified copy of the SPA Ex.P.2 Authorization letter Ex.P.3 to Tax invoices 7 Ex.P.8 Notice Ex.P.9 to Postal receipts 11
Ex.P.12 Unserved postal sealed covers to 14 Ex.P.15 Outstanding statement Ex.P.16 GST certificate WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
D.W.1 : Kumaresh DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :-
Nil (SOMASHEKARA. A) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge Sign 21 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,37,463/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three only). The defendants shall further pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Somashekar A.] C/c LIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
Judge Sign 22 O.S.No.3859/2023 Judgment Judge Sign