Bangalore District Court
Mallikarjuna K M vs Muddukrishnappa R on 10 June, 2024
Judgment 1 O.S. No. 5022/2023
KABC010210642023
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, (CCH-40), BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: K. Vidya, B.Sc., M.A., LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
O.S./5022/2023
Dated this the 10 th day of June 2024
BETWEEN:
PLAINTIFF:-
K.M Mallikarjuna
S/o late Mudhiyappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.251, Someshwara Extension,
Ward No.4, Doddaballapura Town,
Doddaballapura.
(By Sri.V. Chandrappa, Advocate)
Judgment 2 O.S. No. 5022/2023
DEFENDANT:
R. Muddukrishnappa
S/o late Ramaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Lakshmidevipura village,
Tubegere Hobli,
Doddaballapura taluk.
(Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of Suit 07/08/2023
Nature of Suit Recovery of Money
Date of Commencement of 20/03/2024
Recording of evidence
Date of which Judgment was 10/06/2024
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 10 03
(K.VIDYA)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Judgment 1 O.S. No. 5022/2023
JUDGMENT
That, the Plaintiff has filed instant suit for recovery of suit loan of ₹.12,05,685/- against the Defendant along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization and such other reliefs as this court deems fit in facts and circumstances of case.
2. The Factual Matrix circumventing Plaint averments is as follows:-
i. That, the Plaintiff and the Defendant who are well acquainted each other for two decades or so, wherein the Defendant who was carrying avocation of floriculture, poultry and feed business had approached Plaintiff during his Judgment 2 O.S. No. 5022/2023 dire financial necessities and in furtherance to this had borrowed a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- from the Plaintiff before the witnesses and had issued post dated cheque dated 15/12/2022 bearing No.001316 drawn on Axis Bank, Doddaballapura and had agreed to repay the same along with accrued interest on or before 15/12/2022.
ii. That, during second week of December 2022, the Defendant has approached the Plaintiff and requested him to present the said cheque for encashment before the bank and pursuant to the said assurance made by the Defendant, on Judgment 3 O.S. No. 5022/2023 16/12/2022 the Plaintiff has presented the cheque before his banker but the said cheque returned with shara as '' present it in proper zone ''. In light of which the Plaintiff had informed same to the Defendant, wherein which he had beseeched to present the cheque on 01/02/2023 and assured that the cheque will be honored. Believing the sugar coated words and assurance made by the Defendant, he had presented the cheque before his banker, Canara Bank, Yelahanka on 01/02/2023 but to the dismay cheque came to be returned with Shara ''Non-CTS Cheque '' (Cheque Truncation System) and it was not late for the Plaintiff to Judgment 4 O.S. No. 5022/2023 realize that the Defendant knowingfully well the legal pros and cons with deliberate and malafide intention had issued outdated cheque which remained dishonoured.
iii. That, in light of which, finding no other alternative, the Plaintiff was constrained to cause legal notice to the Defendant on 04/072023, but to the dismay the Defendant has failed to comply the said notice despite receiving the same on 05/07/2023. In light of which the Plaintiff finding no other alternate was constrained to file the instant suit seeking redress before this court.
Judgment 5 O.S. No. 5022/2023
3. That, despite due service of summons, the Defendant did not grace to knock the doors of court, in light of which having due regards he was placed ex-parte.
4. That, the Plaintiff in support of suit claim, had examined himself as PW.1, interalia coupled with oral evidence got exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 during ocular evidence and closed his side.
5. That, after perusal of oral and documentary evidence coupled with the arguments addressed by Learned Counsel from Plaintiff Side Sri.V.C the points which arise for consideration is as follows:-
Judgment 6 O.S. No. 5022/2023
: POINTS:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹.10,00, 000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation?
2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim? If so, at what rate of interest?
3. What order or decree?
6. That, On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence and after giving anxious consideration to the arguments addressed the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff, this court answer the points as follows:-
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative.
(in light of discussions and held interest at 9% P.A) Point No.3 - As per final order for following Judgment 7 O.S. No. 5022/2023 :R E A S O N S:
7. Point No.1 and 2:- As the aforementioned points coined by this court are intricated with each other they are taken together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence in present fora.
8. It is evident from records that, the Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant for recovery of suit amount of ₹.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing suit till date of realization.
9. The Plaintiff in order to prove suit transaction, examined himself as PW.1 and in lieu of his oral evidence had deposed in consonance to the facts Judgment 8 O.S. No. 5022/2023 asserted in the plaint. In addition to this, during the time of ocular evidence, PW.1 got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, wherein Ex.P1 comprise Original cheque dated 15/12/2022, which depicts that the Defendant had issued the said cheque towards discharge of his liability in favour of Plaintiff, Ex.P2 comprise the Bank Memo dated 16/12/2022 depicting the shara "Present in proper zone", Ex.P3 comprise Bankers Pay-in-slip, Ex.P4 comprise office copy of legal notice dated 04/07/2023, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 comprise postal receipt and acknowledgment evidencing due service of notice to Defendant.
10. In this context it is vital to state that, the documents exhibited at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 reinforces the fact that Judgment 9 O.S. No. 5022/2023 Defendant had received ₹.10,00,000/- from Plaintiff due to his financial crisis and thereafter the Defendant had failed to pay the same as pleaded by the Plaintiff by issuing outdated cheque.
11. At this juncture, after close perusal of Oral and Ocular Evidence placed by the Plaintiff, it fortifies the fact that the Defendant who had given go-bye to his promise is liable to repay the amount to the Plaintiff and there are no circumstances to disbelieve the version of the Plaintiff for the reasons that the Defendant has remained ex-parte and it emulates the court to draw adverse inference against the Defendant and preponderance of evidence tilts in favour of Plaintiff.
Akin to this the Learned Counsel representing Plaintiff Judgment 10 O.S. No. 5022/2023 Sri.V.C. strenuously buttressed during arguments on these lines and thereupon prayed to decree suit in favour of Plaintiff and urged that the suit is filed well within the period of limitation and thereupon the Plaitniff is entitled for recovery of suit sum as prayed in the prayer column of the Plaint.
12. That, on the said backdrop it becomes impeccable to state that in absence of defence and contra evidence, Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for, wherein which while touching the aspect of Interest, the Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18 % per annum, in the said context it becomes relentable to state the trite that payment of interest at the agreed rate is a rule.
Judgment 11 O.S. No. 5022/2023 Nevertheless, in the instant case, the financial assistance was lent for personal purpose and to dismay of Plaintiff he had become chronic defaulter, keeping the circumventing circumstances in mind, so far as past and current rate of interest is concerned, the parties are bound by contractual rate which may be notionally fixed at 9% Per Annum, wherein which whilst exercising the discretionary powers vested under section 34 of Civil Procedure code and looking into the nature of transaction and based on the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in salubrious dictum titled as Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And another Reported cited with AIR 2001 SC page 3095 held by Constitutional Bench Judgment 12 O.S. No. 5022/2023 which intellectually discussed the scope, significance and discretion enshrined under section 34 of Civil Procedure Code and on the said foothold has laid grundnorms emulating interest, keeping in mind the said observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court and akin to the provisions contemplating section 34 of Civil Procedure Code and on the said foothold has laid grundnorms emulating interest, keeping in mind the said observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court and akin to the provisions contemplating section 34 of Civil Procedure Code coupled with the arguments solicited by the learned counsel for Plaintiff Under attending circumstances, this court answers point No.1 in the Judgment 13 O.S. No. 5022/2023 'Affirmative ' and point No.2 as ' Partly in the Affirmative ' and interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
13. Point No.3:- For the reasons assigned in point No.1 & 2 and resultantly on the backdrop of discussions arraigned therein this court proceeds to pass following:-
:ORDER:
That, the suit filed by the Plaintiff as against the Defendant for recovery of suit amount is decreed in following terms:
Consequently, it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of ₹12,05,685/-(Rupees twelve Lakhs five thousand six hundred and Judgment 14 O.S. No. 5022/2023 eighty five only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount which the Defendant is liable to pay from the date of suit till realization of said amount, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recovery same through due process of law.
Office to draw decree
accordingly.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer over computer system, the computer script generated by her is corrected, rectified and revised by me, and then pronounced in open court on this the 10 th day of June 2024 ) (K.VIDYA) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Judgment 15 O.S. No. 5022/2023
ANNEXURES
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW-1 K.M.Mallikarjuna DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 Original Cheque dated 15/12/2022 Ex.P2 Bankers Memo Ex.P3 Bankers pay-in slip Ex.P4 Office copy of the legal notice dated 04/07/2023 Ex.P5 RPAD receipt Ex.P6 Postal acknowledgment card WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT
---NONE---
Judgment 16 O.S. No. 5022/2023 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR D EFENDANT :
---NIL---
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Digitally
signed by
KALASHETTY
KALASHETTY VIDYA
VIDYA Date:
2024.06.10
17:41:14
+0530