M C Suresh S/O Late B.M. Chamanna vs Sri B Srinivas Naik S/O Sri. Aithu Naik on 13 August, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Karnataka High Court

M C Suresh S/O Late B.M. Chamanna vs Sri B Srinivas Naik S/O Sri. Aithu Naik on 13 August, 2009

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

 

IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT.Bz§1$fG$xLO'I'{ﬂ§';V.  «

DATED Tms THE 13"' DAY OF AUC}€~3S"f §iG:{39    Al' * %

BEFORE

THE1EION'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ,43iiUL :VA.ZEER--   7

 

REGUQJR FIRSTAPPE4"L'}\'é3.'9Q§}£V0fi8 éi;5OAQ
2%.       .. 
MISQ. cm ;w'a§.1413§x2099& 14.§::;,;2§a9 

Between: 

E\«i.C. Suresh,   ; 

Aged about 53   .,, 

Siclate B.M.Chamamia;,%'V_., H 
R,!a,No.96s147, >2?' Main, ' 'j  . 
M1'). Layout Viji13{a1iag1*,,_ V  V'  
Bangaiorewﬁéﬂ  A _ .  "   Appellant.
(By Sri C.%\g;f,_§jNagabhushan,V Sr.Ad*~-.?.)

1  Sri B." Sritiiyagr 'E'*Eajk._,
Age"d_;;bc5ttt  ya-$143,
Sic Sri 
. Rm z~:z.::..42'3;7-3;,' 10"' G Main,
% .. 4' ;;  A-.s'** Bloczic, Rajajinagaxg,
" --,Bangz;1lore"--« 10.

  Sr; §Sei';i:. Snail Kumar,

= _ Aged about 38 years,
" --« _ "Sic lam B.M.Chamanna,-
' Rfa No.963.f4'?, 2*" Main,
M13. Layimi, Vijayanagar,
Bangaiﬁre M 560 040.



2. The plaintiff ﬂied the aforesaid suit for rs'2c<)1;ex'}? §t.i:1;    

0fRs.S6,050!--tegeii1er with couri costs, intereslfat A'fate €;~f 3':/o _ " IL T  A

per azmum from the date of the suit till iV£s.v:1L:4£¥:~rz*zs1is.a'A£i"<:-21:, In V151;   

suit, the plaintiff contemis fhat d¢f3Iz1da11t ANcxé{._2 
him and requested fer a man of  of
their house. C.on3idering.t};§eir   s,%a"s':§;  loan of
Rs.5G,0{}{}f~ on 16.1.~i';i'$§?V85,*: :-<55;,;_t.:  Vgeﬁijai  In this
corlneciion, def€a&3.'}iVAV.'V}%€$SZ'i¥.::E:,:g£«nd"'#>   executed an on
demand preaaisgzgry' ﬁoé  receipt in ﬁnzeur of
the piaintiff both   gs ﬁirther contended that at
tiﬁﬁimg of  d%féiiaé;1I_0S.l am! 2 assayed that they wiii

retuV:*2?_VAth::fVIi:»az1 atgzoéiiﬂﬁithin six months from the ciate 0f the saié

 ,§1'v£)f}3iSS()f}". :mte.    ﬁzrther cémierlds {hat thoxzgh the

_  'c.<;}z1f;t;r1;cti0n uéf ﬁi'Vc2.Vh{31i.se was completed long ago, defendant N05,:

,j.=3:1;ci" "ti; rééaay the said axneuni. Therefore, ha sent 21 rmtiee

 1;i1;ga¥:'Aeiefenda11t N031 and 2 to remm the said amount,

  been duly served an them on 17.19.2001. Since

1
1

'xx;

 



5

5. On the basis of the plaint and the written statenmnt 

by defendant No.3, the court below posted the matter for 3   

of the issues on 8.10.2002. On 51.29035 the egg: i:~eI<':»~';#;1""f'.*-;.a':;*:_;'1§<';i*::: =

the failowing issuas:

"I. Does 'ihe plaintiﬁ° prove u'ﬁ.:a¥::i.l_»i_'£*y §§f~  
defendants to pay  tovéargisvﬁag pfiizcipal as

averted?

2. is p1é§11iLfi' eﬁtiilstd :6   fﬁaim?

3. Wha1relié"2"V_V' ._ 

 '  and 2 ﬁled an apgéieation an 6.8.2063

 V' =..__3eei<;ing  p»erzi1iséic;fiLi:}f.ﬂ:ie Court to file the written siategnent aiesng

xf*s;ii}'2.Vi».i€zei1*  siﬁtmnent. The triai Court a.iic-wed the application

5  géemzissimi ta ﬁie the wri§:£.en statement an gajzment caf cast

 ;'€-'<;s.2.V7.§'si):'-'~ an 16.12.2005. The plairxtiﬁ' has accepieé. the cost an

%   :  %4;i 3;2,2em



"The suit 9f the plaintiﬁ' is dgcreeé. .§vit§*_§  '4   

against defendants I and 2 only

The defendants Z and 2 j{1j;:1t1y'és1<';:   

Iiabie 16 pay a sum of Rs.86,G50,«¥ (»Rupejes   §
Thousand F-iﬁy onzyy u; '~£he piﬁiigiiff @1§'ge¢;1er wiih 
Court casts and current  flgtufe.   rgie cf
6% p.a. on Rs.59,aoQ;~ ﬁf:3i11'1hF¢ (iii-:e_"+Qf't.i}ie s i:i§t"ii11 its
realisatiem. _  é       

{Suit agaii:g$.défe::da,fii~ Ne.43_' is dismissed.
Draw decree a_cc€~,rd§rzg}y"'

   abogg the appeai _ is filed by the first

 impag11ed j'udgne-111' and decree. In this

vial;-gaeai,  aﬁséilani has: ﬁled two applicatﬁens,

" 3§§;iis§;'cx:;.;§§.m3.sz2w9 and ?viisc.C-v}.E\Eer.l46?3:'2GQ9 bath under

 (: } ré_jér'-V_V4i -'Riﬂe 2? of the Code cf Civil Prmedure seeking

T g:+§jGu'uc:ii<:>11 of dwunienis as additi oiriai evidence.

ws
E:
3

*3';



;1. In the app}icati011~ésa£isc.CvI.N{>,.1.4,l'35f2§}{}§§," '- §It1z¢"- t

appellantffirst defenda.m': has stated that hsnasegf  tmggmgtt   tt

defendant filed joint written statement ccittéztgiingatiiat   

request the first respendentfpiaixlttﬁ" for    i§ft~§}s
admitted by them that a sum of    from the
first rspondent ané he taqg'.g'.p;omiss(;:*§¥n§:§te:_:g;:é.é;  sigxed
by the second "  raftetttfrttéiéitttftad gmmised
to return the;  xrqtj;  to the first
tespondent retifiming'  {tote and cheque and the
first respondent  3363f  tzheque far encasitmeznt ta

Eaakf' It a that in spite of the above uﬁiierust,a§;dé¥3gs,.VvA:ﬁ:e __r£::sponéet1t filed a criminai case under _S:¢:c:tie:t' '~ t«V3~uf7'L:._ Negetiahie insiruxnents Act in 't?ttg.c.%zsso.225"9:;2<,*e§o'and that crimixzal case was ultitnateiy settieé , e{'Rs.59,ee:}z. by a demané dxaﬁ. 1: is ﬁnﬂmer the settlement of the saiti criminal case was in ﬁx}! V -- tgﬁéttseﬁimnent 0f the entire stain': of the first resp-zmdent and ustuch, the ciaim maﬁa by the first respenéiettt in the suit is E \\]\E. 12 exazzlinaiion for a long time at 1130 pm. an that day, he was E(':'£----f§} L' A' a proper ﬁazne cf mind to ideaiiﬁy the appeifant W110 the Court hail. That is the rsaraseu why he _ aprpeiiant as cemended in paragapit 8 éf'*- Misc.Cv1.No.14I35s'2GG9. He has sougﬁt %dis::ii;asg;:T 51' gm applicalions. _

24. Sri Nagbhushan, 'Cc~ué%as.g:i for the appellant WOBEE1C(}1§ir2.'}'1d {§i§§i:ﬁ,£'féi'i{#iiII §'é"és.} and 2 have executead a promiasory 1101.«.=§'--a,:zi;i 3 é(};1.'é§idex'a':ii'g>;.14 receipt as cantended in the H03v§x%ér',~ en thé 33.22112 day, the second ciefenéant issued 3, cghequéé, for Rs.5i},O()ﬂi-- with a clear understanding L» that __ in question, the cheque: and the V :* M§fe211issor§'*n3té:éhasiiid be reiumed. However, the plaimiﬂ' fiied a _ Vvén {ha basi$ of the cheque and an amaunt erf paid in the said case in fuil and iinai settlement sf A % Q kjxsgg Veitiiife claim of the piajntiﬁ'. It is ﬁlrthezr argued that thmzglx Nag} and 2 have taken up 3 specific stand that the ciaim :3 kn \ '£3 has bees: discharged ix; ﬁzﬁ and ﬁnal Setiletllexﬂ of the ezaiire dispute, the court below has faiied to frame an issue in this regard. V_ It £5; further argued thai the court beiow without appiwiating ﬁixé' "

evidence oftixe parties on record has deareeé the Siiit. He V' stmng objection to the fmciing efthe court b§:i'o'£%='at.t;a§tagj¥3i3}hV:»§3ﬂ ofthe jucigment, wherein the court beliywhas , «. "

"At the Eime cf argzmuentg. the 1ean:e&"'C_oun$el f '€if"i--}.".!,4;_';A E piaiiaiiﬁ' submitted thai "«--a§'»atft fr-311;' "*~;§:a§:;i§3s:1_1t cf"

Rs.50,(}fJ0;?--" egg16.iii;:V99s;j&pzaig;:iﬁ*:y paid anether sum o£m_%su,m<.j%;:§%¢e§e:gaam 3430.2 on 22.2.1999, for whicﬁ 3 "E-*§*:%1V»¥.*i éssued a cash receipt EX.P:1--1., and there was a criminal * _ ..wl1ici1V i:s' ended as setﬂed out of Court and ' iiééizse, both "t£;}2m3;:.*tions i.e. the suit transacticsn dated cash receipt transaction dated 22$. ~a§féj'.V'sépara1e and éistinc-t." k f g n "15. rgiileéiemea Counsei further submits that the said "ﬁnding ~.i§"§£*it}A'1{j+u{ H3 ﬁiea. It is ﬁxrther argued that; in the countei in the in ?viis€.Cv1.N0.34i35!2£}G9, fthe piai::£iif?iirs*t 'as 18 2Q. The case of the appeiiam dares net fali . conditions prescribed £13 Order 4iRu§e 27(3) 27( the': ' V» A' of Civil ﬁoceaiure. It is naot the case -pf iIAé.£:A.V.:::i,'p}_3e1iaT;'1*£ ' 3 notwitizstanding the exercise of due di3i $é:a.§;§, meagaenee question was not Wiﬂﬁn his knoxviééige ~n§>t pr<;dL§:-

the same or thai the ce':>u:£_ be1o\§',..§1a;S_ said evidence which oug11't_V"£.q.:§ 2703) of Order 41 of the appeliant for prodsietioiliﬁyf-. .. quéstion. The additionak evidence sought" its respect of a suit in

0.s.3ge.753%3,;{2Q<;-3 meg" big Vinoé Kumar against the rim defen§iézi£'«an é Kantllamrna. in the said suit, 'fined Ku:nar'.ss}V1i.ghi i'<§ fej.3_0Vf:%f'V.a sum of Rs.86,§G§§-- ﬁozn the 3&2-and H on the geunti that he had advanszred a , £i;rf:R;s.':§§}3{¥QV?G"}'~ to the defenéants {herein 0:: 22.10.2001 and the *:§1ei?2r:'dai1*§s»é§:ec:;ted .3. promissory note and a censideratien receipt ' . . day 3:36 that they have faileé to pay the said amt:-uni in efthe said pramisgevry nests. That has taefhing to (is whiz this E '$4 26 consideration receipt executed by defénciant $93.1 a11d'2"i:2if;23?61ir'--AV .4 2 of the plajntﬁﬁ'. The third defendant ﬂied mg W:-gm; S:a;;m£ A 8.10.2302 denying his liability is pa}-'Tth«3.Van1<Viu.:1£"in .

the basis of the piajnt and the ﬁlird defeﬁdam, ihi.' 601511 be-low vs;hi§AhHhave alreaéy been culied autin paragg-'a;.§h:~.5 The first and second }:3iI':6.S.2003 3}-zmg with an appli§;'3f§i:{)13V.§;§?:;;:§-:¥1V.g."'--;':§if &i§"Fouﬁ below ta ﬁie the written permitted deféndam Nos.§ and 2 to ﬁla tf1e--payme11t of cast of Rs.2§{}.2"--

'by its dated Defendant N03} and 2 have 'H eff Ex.?1 anti E§z.i'2. They have taken a plea of dis£$ha:'g?aVef in question. It is eontenéed thai they have V vpaié 3.~..;§;1.1::'t; <3f R.s.22_.{}%f- ta: ﬁle piajgxiiff towards pariiai Qf amount bermwed from him. it is ﬁmher ccsntegzéeci 'i$:z2i'sé§:o:1d defenéani had issued a ci1eque--Ex.P12 in favour 0f VT fer a sum Bf Rs.50,(}0{),?~ ané the p1aj;nt:iﬂ'i1as premised D' "R3" return the said cheque issued by the second éefendant anti the E

4. we 25 for issuance: ofthe cheque E>e;.P12, defendant and 2 _--i17aLve" ' taken any 2i3110'i}:!'1I and that they were not iiabie £43 pz;§*?af'§1y&3;:1§e11:iii X,. ' as Shawn in the cheque. He has further d::'i1i'ed_t.he taking advaxitage ofthe cheque Ex.I__'i2, he and that sinse defandazit No.2 is a ; order to avoid all cmnpiicaﬁans he gave sailed hefere the C-rimina} C:_03.I3;?. 1;'

24. The as QXV}. In his exasninatiexa-£21-<:§;ief,._ he. : _"sta"_t'ed ' jhat the plaintiﬁ' has deiibexately 4'i'~§:35f£86§§-1f§£¥(»'}O in the said ease, anlonzats duff: ""io._1':§3e bééx1.seit.£ved. The entire evidence of 1.11::

parﬁes; Silgsw ﬁiétvfhe parties have uaéerstood their case, iei their'éasjééncé'éi§_'ihe';f.§I;é§ of éischarge, Mezraiy because an issue not beer°1"-.ﬁ*a1:nfei}- éésting the burden on defendant N031 and 2 ' tskga ofﬁischarge is not fatal to the case. Therefore, the '4"~ ' .§ﬁb§iki$SiAéi1"cf'A{he learned Counsef for the apspeiiani that juégznent 26 and decree impugned herein is bad since no issu'3»ré;1ati;§g 15;) 'ﬁiéa ﬁt' .. discharge has been framed is hereby rejected}:

25. It is the specific case of 'tigaf ﬁje under E:s;.Pl and Ex.P2 and EX.P1l 9 5»en1;1;v1jeiy different, Since the cheque iSéﬁ§ri_ glefendant at E:~:.Pi2 was dishoncaured, the piaifitiﬁ' under Sec£i0n"i'38.§§f;1f3§;§ :%%£eg0ii§:bIé ﬁisirmﬂents Act. The matter was setiied 3:} far "of the cheque-E-:»:.?I2 is concerned. It is f§Ai2.'§T:ﬁ*l=':i'.:t second defendant has issued a :_:*é¢s2:3ipt 1, as under:

T "RECEIPT a sum af" Rs.Fiﬁ:y thousand (50,(}ﬂf}1'-) Aonly B.Srinivasa Naik residing at Ne.4:'»33, 6"' " Rajajinagar, Bangaisre --- 16 to meet my urgent '1:'£§{']1il'.!'ﬁI11£3I1IS in connaction with ihe consizructien of " 'house 968, 2"" Main Raad, M.C.Layout, 'xfijayanagar, Bangaiora --- 40. I have issued a cheqae bearing KR:

28

statentxrm admitting the execution ofthe pfi}-flﬂlﬂ' and c*;1r::1:~*.;'x:i_s;LA:-='fé.'ti'o4:::'1" --. [ f --. :" receipt at Ex.Pi and Ex.P2. Hsawe-vet, they haxﬁtakezx' . discharge. It is the case of the plaintiff that thézje rei2;1i()t3:s:'§h§g::>u :1 A between the two tratzsactiens under E32912. Therefore, questien of raising__a!:'pIea.._Vrelaiirig-- 1,19 transacticm under Ex.Pl I and Exl' net arise.

The court below on consiiieratiot1- '6fthé§'«faC?,s.V'a11d of . the case, has deezraszdifag Qfvfé.cﬁ';féVc0rded by the court below iskjrn pa*0péf"';3;;;a1féci§it§9§§' evidence on reward and there is no ViIlé'gaiiiy »--43f"*§rfeguIa1'ity in those fmciixags. There is inerit in vappéai. It is accerdingly dismissed. E'*+}'c_:i. '(IE-'.1}1i1'£tiﬁ'in the suit) is pennitted to vs;i*£h&aw the » . a.tnomi1~izé' }n_thiS 'appeal.

28.'~-I,_,e:ar;s':es.*i_:(:T?a1eA1.1§:sei fer the appeﬁant submits ihai he may ' " foﬁke hack the documents produced aieng with the

5.,A_jV"'3p?;31%éati{a:3.s;&i%/£isc.Cvl.2\§os.1413552099 and 1467352009. The first 'Viiﬁpéndéni has 330 Qbjeatien fear the same. Therefore, Registry is 11':

29

directed to return {"336 documents prociueed along M§s»"£ti:1T Misc:.Cvl.Nos.14i35:'2G09 and 1467352609 to {£26 ieamed ' for {he appeiizmt aﬁer ietaining their xerax csopiéé. $2') . ' ' Iv -. BMM;,I3820Q9 V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court