M/S Vijayalakshmi Offset Printers vs M/S Melgiri Enterprises on 15 April, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vijayalakshmi Offset Printers vs M/S Melgiri Enterprises on 15 April, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IN TH 12 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 13ANGA.1.,0rg.1.3
DATED THIS 'I'HE 15'"! DAY 01? APRH. 

B [3 F0 RIC

'I'HEI1~ION'BI.E MR. JUSTICE A{{AVIN{)'£{U----E§QI:;f\:R'=:  u

CRP No.87 01?  [3
BETWEEN:

M /s VIJAYALAKSHML
OFFSET PRINTERS V Z
'No.56, 8?" MAIN ROAD   .
J.(:.1NDus'rR1A:. lES'I'A'l'E€   ;
KA.NAKA.PURARQAD  A
BANGALOREw5_6.00r3.2  V     
REP'1'D.. BY ITS PI}£'.0PRIETQR _'   
sRI.RAMEs§--1I5ABU...-f;--_V     v
' --:'  " » ....PE'I'ITlONI:'.R

[BY SM? H§iA}vz1}}»NA   V
AND: . _ _ _ _

M/S M13113 1%: I.~iN71TI1-.RPRIS1§fS
17. V1252?" MAIN ROAD

 '~  _NEI{_'I '*'1"Q _s.r3.M. 1"s*1*'----3Loc1:<

'RAqAJ1NAGA:=1._

 LBANGALQR.1:»5600 10
'REP_'Fif)." -:3Y._M.A'N.A'G ER AND G EN 1:«:RA1_,-

POWELR o1:A'1i:'0RN [CY I--{OLDER
.  ....RESPONl)EN'i'

V' »:£¥3YSN.m }§.S.SE2£EEKANT}--IA. ADV. FOR C /R)

TE'"IIS CIVIL RIB-'v'IE3iON PI'C'I'I'I.'IOI\J IS l9'lI.iEI'D) L}[\§I')i'€R

 WS"EC1'ION 18 or: KARNA'I'AKA SMALL CAUSES COUR1' Am'.
AGAINST 'l'}-{Iii JUDGMICN1' AND IJISCREE DA'r1e:D 3.12.2009

PASSED IN S.C.NO.I5l77/2009 ON TI-ii') FiI.,IC OF THE 17""



ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JU DGIC. MAYOl"lA.1.,L B/\NGA.l.,ORf*Z
DECREEING 'l'I"{E SUIT FOR Rl€COVI?ZRY OF MONEY. 

THIS CIVIL REVISION I-'f*3'l'l'l'lOl\? COMING o:N-§i=oi'a

ORDERS'1'I--£18 DAY, Tl-E 1%: COURT MAIDIEZ THE i=o1,;i;ow_1;\i_(;:r.~.  _

oRoERwW_

'l'hough the rnai.i:m' is listi.eld_V foro>g.aiiriiiss.i'(::5i='1.'"l'5y__t.l:;g;?.'

consent: of learned (I()l.EI'ES€1*:f(}-If' the"parties;Vflip__1jevi;sior1 

petition is taken up fol" ﬁnal 

2. This is 21  (}ue.stio1i1ing the
correCi:.1'1ess  Ville " fleéctrec' dated:
3.u;2oo9 p§3g§L;n so isififos bythe 17m Addl
Small    Division. Ba11ga1lc)1'e

(s1;og;2nll**S

 "l'hc'p'arl.i":es are referred as per the ra111<.s

court. Hoslomr. At the commencement' of the

 aI'«g;uiT1e1:*i«f;¢S IE:-z1.:'i1eCl (".()El1'}S€l for the Revisioii pei'it;io1'itrr

filétl th__EE'pl:3'ddings of trial a:ou1*t, exhibits and also made

  axirailablé, the €*.Vid€I"1C€ let in by parties.

 4. The facts in brief are as follows:
Suit in S.C.No. £5177/O9 was l"il<::d sttelcmg

recove1*y of sum of 1.868% wit)": imcrest. at 24% p.21.

égpr'



from the date of transaction till the date of payment'. It
was coiitenciecl in the suit that plainlﬁf is a \'\»'lv'1V("),'l':.0'.""'.~,E.1lt'
dealer in Micro Offsets, 'l'.P. Inks and 
materials and it was run Lmder the  rl)_:i"

l\/i/ s. lvielgiri Elnterprises and ci_ei'er1rla]t1{4'-aspis._m:1e=of 

regular Custorrier sin('t'. lasifivic yealrsf I t \-vas' '(i0r_11.ci'_i§dt?Ci _ 

that plaintiff used to supply Mi_C1':)u 'l'.P'"inks arid other
printing materials to 01';---l3(}' c_lefen;_d:--.1r1--::_"£r{jm the year 2000
on cash as well  on C~r--e:;1if'Vba--sAis and ii"1w'é1s agrce(.l ﬁlial.

whenever  wheres» _sup.--pljisti {iii credit" basis, the

defe11dar1'l,0Vsh.all   within 30 days from

the da'r.E:--.ofapii1*CVl'1ase_»0a:.10€i»..ii..--~t.he defeiidaan fails to do so

. within _Vt:E'1e s't:iplL1l.21.f.edl"pér'i.0d, the defendant. shall pay the

'"V-int€vrs§s'E.--,"-.at'r--ilie rvalié of 24% interest: psi. 11 was

 .c(3ntVé1'1(:_l"'c:rl "'iah'a_t:'_}it was having a running accounli Of the

det'ei_1dani, _aj';.1d  and when the clefe1'1dant. used to place

 V'"()nI'(Zl(3I'S ()..'f€I' phone or through his ageinis. n1at:erials were

 _ 0' bVéi--1'1gA'lsuppliecl.

5. It was (".()I'1lE;'I'](i(:?(l iliaii r.irz1'ii'n___{ the period

April 2005 to 28.11.2006 and on several other

4g,/



4

occasions pleiimiff supplied mat.eri2'-118 to the defeiidant
on credit. basis for tetteil worth of Rs.6.37'.79(:'5/M and it
was contended that gig:-iiiist: the supply of the r1'1at.eri.a1s

defendant issued post: dated cheque for Rs.19,9-18/~

dated: 31.08.2006 a1'1in1'ig__gs1. iss1,1ii'1g;f other (311£?'t'~]>lVE"tL?.'§~,.iI"!.

respect: of balance amouiits due. Since the__'cie1ie1"idé1nt_4't V

did not make payment and z:it.Mmt'i"1ey_ 1=eq7.iest«__Qf"~t1i1e'1

defendant and by consent; piaiiitiif is am 

presented the cheques for reé1d«1.ivé"a:t:io1i, "w_}1i'eh'.I c.:ai;1ie to be
returned with an e:1i~d_0rs«en1erit., "'v{t'nsuft'ieiéént: funds'.

Her'1ce;tV'§5i0ain.t£ff'  preceediiigs under Sec.}38 of
Negotietbie [for Sh()}'1" 'the N.I.Act') for

dishynnourta'e'f_e1'1eq11e;ii'i':VC.C.N0.36.19/2007, be.f0re the

0"-.jurisdie'tViona1 MagiStrat.e which ultimateiy on contest.

 e...1*e,;:.~,.i,101te(f1*»-.iyr1' cenyfictioii of the accused therein i.e. revision

petitionei'_0he1'ein by seritericing the 2.1c'cused to pay fine

 (n)l'7L£I1d'*E?_l'"g0 imprisonment. for default". Hence, it was

0 --..e0;<1tended in the suit that defendant was liable to pay 22

 v...._s3§um of Rs.3},868/M which includes the principle

aniount. as wet}  the int.c1"est. 011 service of notice



before the trial court. def'enda1'1I en1'e1'ed appea.:'aze1('re
and filed written statemein: by deiiyiiig Elie trarisacttions

with the plaintiff and also supply of T.P. ii1.1{.::'a1i1d

printing materials. i.)efendant also deniedgiiha-t.V'_~t_I1e1i€¥'*A

was any arriount. due from defeI1dam. 1'10 t_h--e.. p:i~:»,1ii":.t:ii'i'.A It 

was also denied in the wriT.te_n ;sAta:tefr1e11t"'-t1'"Iat___ 

materials has been supplied four-._ RsV.6,i~:'3'7'§g7'v9_€>/ as 

contended by the plaintiff.___4_i:""-.,:_O1} 1.}i(a of the

pleadings. the trial C()'ui5t .f1*ame'd  points for its

determination: 

 """ H  jijlijieiiihiiitifthfivdW1a1'0ves that the
i A i'  faurehased materials
  for the period
 to 28.11.2006 and towards
"i'r.epa1yfi1"eiit: had issued cheque bearing
   aN§.243077 for Rs.I9,9i8/-- dated
 and the same has been
. ietumed eneashed and defendarit; has

not paid the amount after receipt of

CQX

riotiee of diS1"lOI"1()tEI"?

2. What order or decree'?



6

8. Plaintiff got examined one witness nt-nneiv

S.Nara}/ M121  the Mzmager of the Firm as P'Wi.._':mci

got marked Exs.P1 to P59. The defendant;"1'et-I.j'n._:

evidence through the proprietor Sri.Ra:fnx.::s].if~..[%3£::.ijnA  

DWI, but did not get any (iO(?L1t11eI}"t;:'-.5.jfliéxifkésd'; "it-et._y_v2::z:;:3e

contended in evidence by<th--e_V defendant 

had been given as seet.n'ity 2in'd_there  1'1of%a.Inoun!',
due from the defe1*1da1'1"'i-- to. the i;;j1;ai'i1'1ti'f'tf."i._On c'onsiderii1g
the pleadings dI"1'C]Ve\/id6l'1'{i:€.:O¥1"1?§'C()i'(;I.  evaluating the

same. Cotirt. 'bei5ow'.  iiis.,..jL1--:'ign1eI11Wémd decree dated

  z1swf')fa1yed for. It was also
observed by the"A:CVobt11:t"«below at Para»1.8 that. any

ainoigmt.   tdhevs defendant. pursuant to the

 "iv?-assedvddddiohv the iVEa'Fistrate Court. the said
Joe V i« y 5.

A=.a1n1oL1nt'is " t,o'~.be  off from the claim of the piaintiff

and~.,aeeo1'di.}'1g1y the suit  to be decreed. It is

H '"----v."E,hies judgment and decree is questioned in this revision

.i,¢:titio1.¢. 



7. I have heard Sm{..Jamuz1a Ban, learned

counsel appearing for the revision pet',itioner/del'e.rl'el.;i1'1Al:

and Sri K.S.Sreekam;l1a, learned cmmsel  "

the responCle111:/plaimill'.

8. Smt. Jamuna Bat wo1l:1'l_d =th::11f'

Court failed to take imo c()11é~:.i,de;21f.e1tio1'1~..the_ clvE_;sC§":fe:fjar1cies V

in the plaintiffs e\ride"n.(je. ofi 'Er1'§'f"'u--..'(r)'-V1-:'tI(:'l1'.' ()fVvl*1i(.f11. it" lms
resulted in prejudice to 'i,l'1'e7' dCfQl1(.l_a.Illl;__ She would
contend that,»  "_'ordi§r_1g§to.'pl<aiﬁfif{',' tfansz:1et.i()n  said

to have loéeejﬂ_'do:1e4"{f'o;;'"._1:laeu'--:_peri()(l Aprilw2005 to

 which could moi have

been aec:epi.ed_  Court for the reason that no

 pr11d.§:nt]A'busirie»sg; _____ person would have supplied the

'1jnVat.eri-also'o;i'*1:l'1e credit basis and not ini1.iat.ed any

amen f(51--'7je1b'r;)ut three years and would have remained

 silent, She would elaborate her submissions by

ffecﬁit-e11di11g t.ha1'.. pla.ir11il'l' halci not proved tlae

tra11sa(étior1s in question by pr0(:lueing satisfa(:t.()ry

evidence to establish the nexus between the alleged

transaction, cheque issued and the. amou111'.s due ancl as

4?/



such she contends that plain1':iffwas not entitled for a
judgment, and decree. She would also Submit. 
Court: eomniittzed 21 .=._.serEou$ error by  .
judgment pronounced by the  
convicting the defendant. for   
under Section 188 of 'the :5';uit.A.
On these grounds, s1~:e  i:'hv21_i. ' j«'t1'dg1iie11t. and
decree passed by the C3()VL1_'1"t 'ii,-i--eiioi7»r._.f'1*c)rr1 material
irregularity  the same and

allowing ofit:1ie§:717e{}iS--i.o,11"}je_t.i'tion.   V

 -. 'Per"::;o-nijraig-.Si<i__Eireekantha. learned cioimsei

appearingi_fo:'_ ~:9e3n"o.nde1'1i.~plaintiff would contend

 thatfgii, has cjomevin the evide.11(*.e of the d{?'i'€?T]dE1l'11. that

 gooris --were.._be_ing suppkied to the defendant. on credit:

b:1s'iS \§J'5iCh,1' is aiso accepted and the present

 i.rarisaCii',ic)n along w'it'.h other i.rai1saet:ion rei-ates to

 mn'ni11_g account n1a'1iniaii'ieci by ihe piz'1iniii'i' for :=3up"}..;

of Micro Offsets, 'I'.P. Ink and other printing materials
and thus when the defendant was t'.1*ansac::ting with the

plaintiff for the pasf five years prior to the Eransai_ti.ion in

6%/'



9

qu<~:s1:ion tl1€I'€'. was no occasioii for the p1ain1':ii'f to
disbelieve the C1€fC1'1C'1::k1']1 to supply E'l'"1(' goocis_;aiji'Cl._4i~i.1'1.
order to secure tlie paymeiit, the plaiiitiiff 11.a__(§i_M"()':3t'_aiiied'

post dated cheques and ihus he re1ihe_s_"'~--iip:s5.'r1 yihe»

_;udgme1'1i. passed by the _;u1'iscii_c:i.iQi'iai1 

Ex.P~2 which mid (TOI1Vi('.tEfC}' the s'c'tsg%ii'sc(1~(i..'»:€f¢'i'iCii1Iii'; 
the offeiice punishable EllldélirS.€(?[i0f£'._:38.V.1Oi?K:i.i"ié'NJ.
Act. He would also saihniit. bs'1'<5\\,..mi.s taken
into c(msidera1t,i()11  '' h('+oi1f"i:'ma11i<s):1 of
balance issued by the:.defehdé1--i1i'gad.'*niii.iivn§, and eigreeiiig

t41ie:'e1..;'1'1de1*' i'i;h5e_v ba7'é§1ii(7(%».d'i:aé byvhim to Ehc plxgiiiiiiiff. The
Sigi18tL1A1'+?V. found  aiso ctonfroiited to DW1

and has  éidriiitiiird by him  i.1'1_at of his

'V"sigi"'iatt:s'i*a.V" Acc:c)fdii1g3y, he submits that order sf the

t.ri.a1 Cc{1;t»;fif  not siiffei" from any i11egali1*y much less

nia'i'..eri'ci.fJ'iiffeg1..1121rii.y. He: would c'.*<):'ii.e1'1d i}'1ai' the 1'.1'i2':1!

 'Court has t:akc1'1 into consideratioii the evideiice lei in

"by'bt3th the parties as also the docuinents p1'odL1oed by

i " "the plaintiff while decarciiig the suit. and ac:cc')rc1i1'1g_{ly he

socks for dismissal of the revisi<_>r: pc~.t:ii'i()1'1 a»u1d

d§./



E0

c0nfi1"mai:i01'1 of 1:110 jL1<ig111(%:1l' and C]t:'.('.'I'C'C' 1');-1ssc%!(i ':.\y_ the

Court' below.

10. Hzzviiig heard the iearmzd (7_<)'1;11i.§c:.l»"ik.)r' ii:c 

parties. the foflowing poitiits 21rise'..:I'c)r:_-ran}? c:(:.1;1s-i.cVi"c:1'éiiiibnfi if 

1.

Vi/heather U'l8_jL£dQff1.éfi~I arid 'd¢_cr7e}9 by the Court Ab.elow; 'fromﬁ ' a'r1g.;..~}nat'eri(1l irregizlariﬁi;'x:2.i:?' {I16 exercﬁsed its jur1'sc_iiciionAiVLIgQa.VllgfV.ﬁ?A 'V V

2. Wficirggfderii? a N The ._fact;s°win_»iVc:h[ 'ar_é"'-11c';t'bei}:1g in dispute are that the p1aint.iff_is fa 'V\V2'\fI_"li)'!.(',."'%'rI'l'.I'._Lf/': suppiier and dealing in Micro Offsﬁﬁs, T.P.Ink" 0.11161' p1*inti1'1g materials. It, is aiso either of the parties that the defendam iS*A£i*.C1.IS'i.(§v§§lE§}i3' V()'{ the pizj-"iiritiiff and use-;:c:l to pL11'(T]'1E,1SE.' j Mictrfj Qffeiséts. 'I'.P.Ink and other prinlmg mat.er.'iai5 ..f%7r€3r*:*"'«--.:E1e piai1'ii:i1"1' and was the regular cusionier of thee' ' plV:;i11i',ifi' from past. five yezirs prior 1:0 ihe dat:e of the suit. =.f1_: admitted by the p1aim:ifT themselves that goods were being supplied both on Cash anti (rredif basis to the Q"

defendant. In so far as the credit payment is e01'1e~e__r11e.d it is ecmtiended by the plaintiff that 30 days 't1'irii<-'E2;-?é1is norriially given to the defendemi to make iihe ._:3sy'Inheri'1'i"i V' and in the event payment. excetetdedt defendant had agreed to pay pi:-1."

t.he date of supply. It is that"

in respect. of t.he tised to issue post dated of the goods/ tbasis. 'i'11<31..1gh defendant written stateriient.

it is ti*i.stvV'dei'ei'1da1nt, has admitted in Wabount issue of posbdated cheques. F(')r..wiia't. pi::r1jose the cheques were issued to A"'t.ii1e'.__I§I2>i'i'r1t.ii"i7__is notwf"ort.heor11ing either in the written eif~.t--defe11da11t.'s evidence. It is in this ba<iii.grG__t1i'1d«--"" the rival eoni:entic>ns raised by the h4"-.V"1'esspeet.ive Counsel is required to be addressed by this

12. P}_aii1t.if1' has e0nt.ei'1ded that. for the period April-2005 to November+2006, the plaintiff had supplied W [.7 materials to the dei'e11dai1t on credit for a i;ot:ai worth of Rs.6,37,796/W on different. oecasicms by raising the invoices. T he o1'i§.___;ii1a1 of the said invoices has __bee.n pl'OC1LlC€d by the plai1'1i.ii'i' before the iViagist.rat'.e {X3-::1f1=1;V"i:'i 'C.C.No.36i9/2007 and as such the produced by way of se(:ondary:.:evi:i.er1c{eHihet. copies of the those i1'1voi<'res Vbt,%I*o;»z"'e as Exs.P8 to P59. Sir1c:eV»i't:io:'L:'was v1f'L.,1'1'.:7iVi_'i1g;"'..ioikkioiiiit, 'V defendant is said to Vi"i&i1..\x/(3 iii 1'veVspeei. of those invoices which is '£5' _dL1e_'vas'v__o1'1 the date of the is§;{,121£1'(':»eff.of" i:1h£-. _'("'h;eIc;L1es.V"" The iss1.,1ance of the cheques--.ar:c:1 'i'--he*':iiat.ure~,of transactions between the parties was'1':h_e siihjeeti irhatt.er of the adjudictation before

--.,.i.tehe"':§'Li1'i.sdi(ittioi'1alAVM'éig'isii1'ate in C.C.i\?o.3619/2007 and s.itVV?fisasi':éi1:f1'dAe(iiiidtsonvicrtion of the accused i:h.e1'ein namely the-._ defefidaiit [revision petitioner herein]. A ""I"herc%ai'terweirds, the p1air1i;iff has ii1stit:ui.ed the preseni _ suit ;for recovery of the a.mount.s due under the invoices. V. The contention that came to be put foiwa.i'd by the defendant. in the suit. crouid be found in 1)e11'a1gg1'a1p11 4 of 4/ writteii stateniellt. w}'ie1'(~:in it is <:o11i.e11c1ec1 t:1iz2:i. t11ei'e was no supply of rtiateiial by iilrie plaintiff t_o'v._t"1'1_Ve defciiclarit. Vii"{L1E111}z'. <1et"e1'i<ia1i'i1 has 1'i'1z2icic~ a_i.§'_§'";.ﬁgI§,n1)3;_'2 denying the trarlsactioli itself. i".11'é"'sai'11é"w..i,i'mt:.__0 defendant admits that he is a plaintiff Firm. The C1(§f.€¥1Ci23i3']x»:[«~.,§1..1q_} }ii$a*- admits that there \N:;1S §;.'$f.."_.vJi'\/'\.-'C.'..L:"'.I:"l' .1:1._ii1i_ﬁéin(i the plaintiff. Though iSSL1£1if"£(:i'(;:T.'(Th$§(iﬂi?30zV'Ei:1:.&;]i1*&'§§T',i()1'l been dispu'1.e(.1 by z1dI'1'1iU,('?Ci by D .W. 1 . E:ha,'1" i':i::':E__ ;">'i"0(0.:)(*.(:"r(;*Cii i'1gs E-1.§g{'c"i§ :"1.-ii' him if}? amid i1. i'i"t(1(:",d E11 ins;

C()11V'iLTté£)fi.«. .0 '1'hE-- ..']0):1VEiiE1T:'E]"f in order to (:',SI',:»i§)§i.'5h iht: i0:-mi. »i.h~a"g supplied by the plaimifi' to tlric c1e3AfQ.1:1dV2'ir1'f'jIr1ei;§'procluced iihe invoices Ex.P8 to P59. THE? j 1'e(:e'1p.t'0i¥s.a0i' '(}'i€S€'. iI'1V(')i(".E?S hzive been deiiieci by iiic €iéfC.t1dani:.. The ;--:i::1'1 i.oi,a1 of i..1'1«:? iiszgiieti ii'iv<)§i:c:s is P?is.0,37,796/a E~1oweve1', the deferidaiﬁ by execi.it.i:'ig 'letter dated 30.9.2006 has c:01'ifirr1ic:d that baizuiiztte rim-.= from him to the p1aE1'1i.iff is 'Rs.6.35,'733/~. '1'hc:i'r; is :10 $2 explemation f0rt:hc:omi1ig. \Vh'c1l)S()€VCl', as to why the cleferidant has exeemed the C()l1fiI'R1'c'--1liOl"1 of bE1.1ti2'1€?'!£:¥_ 'in favpur of the plaintiff, if the ('()I'Jl't;'.I']l'i()1l of t"i'i_e' :--dt>l"t-€'1i§:l2:3zyihtq * is that there was no amotmt. _r,l»ue._f1'()_i711 lii'ﬁ1' t:'e._'_t.Vl1e._V V plaintiff. A perusal of the w1"itt.eri«ist21teiI1ei'1i__i'eve;1l"

defendant. has taken a1 (1C'.VfL",.{ul.(':i'j of Vtie;;nyiVl'1g§_ tf}.1Ve'''ieiitii'e '' transamion irieludi1'1g with 'ttvlie.-131211ntiff. The said COI1t€I"1l,iO1'1 by the trial Court on VeV"'§i':n1Vei1c.:e of PW} well as S(?1'l§'l'l'7Vl'" of DW l. l\'l0\vhere the deileiidzaxtiri the plai1'11,ifl' to xvhethezr'-.a:1iy have been issued by the plainylgiﬂ" at"= ;i'riy_f.p0'i_i1t."° of time as and when the «.{I1e1'-t;ei*i22_l-s/geods W'e'::"'eVsuppiied by them. On the other _h':«,_nd,-- »v:§id.1:1*'1'f;.t.t',ed by defendant that he has executed EXP9, 3.*iz.",j, 'Co11fi1*m2.1tion of Balance. The signattire V"»f0l_ll1dz i1V_1_l:' Ex.P9 is also not in dispute. Coupled with V."t1'V£i-S_f{f'lCt.. it found that dt'3f(:3l'lC1'dI'1t has issued post:

.. elieqtie to the plaintiff but it not discrlosed to why the said Cheque was issued to plaii'1tii'l'. On the 4%"

other hand. def'e11c1ai'1t has cz1i:eg()ri(:a11y E1dI11il'.1'.€d the execrution of Ex.P.S3 vix.. Conﬁ1*1m1i',i<>1i1 of B£E1}'{ii11("('. which factor has been takeri into cor1sidera1:i_un4' by V. Court' below while d(i',CI'€€iI1g the suit. He1r1_§ité.~.,_it,:.A¢'2a1311(§t:--« be said t.ha1 said fi1'1ding siifik-yrs; .f;i1'Un1*_ja*t1yV.__t"i:n;:1_LCi'i§il irregularity. AS seen from the judg1rI_1e'n1. of 1I.:vr;I.a_1:Vcr<'JL1rt: 211:' paragraph--10 d€f(;'.Il(1EU'1{' h£1SE1=11 }1_iS c'r'<2s_é4':§xz1i:j1ination adrnit.ted that he p1.1:ﬂ<.¥'i"M;z1sc--§Vd from plaintiff between 2004-2006. '-alsf) they-ei1'1 by the defendant' thiiat :$>}'1'_<: 2J'requx%:S't;'iﬁg" the plaintiiff to despat{:Ii"'ig'o.(fC1s 1_'3"i;--1'Vi'1-":f'ii:"*.';"i';1'.*5€'d to send the by Aut.oric§}<sh21W. _ = 'v 5'14_. is ',i"(:)i)11"1fE tfizii. Court below on E;-1ppI'€('.i&1T.i()I1 'bf .éR'i.dé'f'ICé'~.'cH1d takiI"1§_§ into CO1'1SiC1€'.l'E:1ti()f1 the defemtrs 2t%ifc..defcnda1'1i. has founci that aiiiounts are clue.by_"'ihAe§Adeferidani. to the plaintiff and the said '_judg. "1C'Ii'i€ and d<;*.c1'<-re passiad by 1,h.€ triai Court: neither."

's_i,1'i'fers from any i1iegalit.y or material ir1'egu1a1*it,y aiiid as " "-sL1c:}1 the <:011i:cém'ic:>1-'1 of the 1ear1'1<:>ci (:o:...11'1s<:l for thcr. p€t;iE.i0n<;~.r cannot. km z'1c:c3ept.ed a11d- is l'€'.jC(f1t:Td. ﬂ/' $6 Accordi1'1g1y. poim" No.1 is answered E1§_§'c1iI'1Sl the petit.ic')11e1* and in favour of £116: 1'@sp<)11dem}--plaintifl".

15. Re--«P0ini No.2 in View of llhﬁ' dism1ssi<>1i1s nmdc l'1e1*<-:.=i11__;£§j'm{t'~g:1ii:-;- following order is passed:

(i) The Civil Revision Pe,i:it,i01'1 A. E18'"--dl{i1li'lS$f"d_ devoid of mt-:ri1:s._r .4 _ V ' [ii] The jiiclglmrnt a11*icl:"de(::1'ee--- 17"' Addl. Snmll Cite?'-i;2ss.E§;es. V"-COliI'l:,' 'vv..l\/I.a§y()»iri2:1ll, Bangalore ""--i:iij.i 'S.Ci;l\T5:--:lv'ExA:'l'7,7/2009 dated

3. 121 2009 ¢:>o:*i'i"m':1:é:d {iii} "l\lA<)iv5.r-;z'def§f as 1"u._'(ir<)sst.:~s, in mur ofihé:dis.}3ps2:1l of the main pemiorz i_i',svl1', Misc5--,:Cv1;848:3'/'f;?..OVl0 does not survive for (:0risiderai:im'1 'é1V.l'v1'd._[}7l_€'.V'~,S£1I"'I"§'iE,_' stands dismissed 1'1avi1'1g b€{§()131(':?

TUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court