Karnataka High Court
The National Small Industries ... vs M/S Mysore Lamp Works Limited on 10 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45583
CRP No. 26 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 26 OF 2012 (RES)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LTD.,
THE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, WHOLLY OWNED BY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NSIC BHAVAN, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 020
AND HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH
OFFICE PRESENTED AT NO.C-424,
PEENYA 1ST STAGE,
BEHIND PEENYA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE -560 058,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
SRI M L PRAKASHA
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI S KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
signed by AND:
MALATESH
KC
1. M/S MYSORE LAMP WORKS LIMITED
Location: OLD TUMKUR ROAD,
HIGH
MALLESHWARAM WEST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560 055
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. M/S.COSMO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES
NO.25, 1ST FLOOR, LALBAGH FORT ROAD
(NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE)
BANGALORE -560 004
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45583
CRP No. 26 of 2012
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI OM PRAKASH
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014, NOTICE TO R1 IS NOT
NECESSARY SINCE CRP IS NOT PRESSED AGAINST R1;
SRI G.SUMANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2010
PASSED IN O.S.NO.7924/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, ACCEPTING THE MEMO ONLY
TO THE EXTENT OF SEEKING DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT AS
AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.1 THEREIN AND ALSO ORDERING TO
BE DISMISSED THE SUIT AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3
THEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri S Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff came to be closed based on a memo.
3. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"The Memo is accepted only to the extent of seeking dismissal of the suit as against defendant -3- NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR No.1 and it is partially rejected relating to the permission sought for continuing to prosecute the suit against defendants 2 and 3. Consequently, I hold that in view of the settlement arrived at by the plaintiff with the 1st defendant in respect of the suit transaction and having extended the said benefit to the defendants 2 and 3 also who are co-borrowers and the sureties, the suit is also ordered to be dismissed as against defendants 2 and 3 also."
4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
5. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money from the defendants. Plaintiff being the company registered under the Companies Act, wholly owned by the Government of India, had extended the facility of bill discounting to the first defendant for the supply of goods to be made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. As and when such materials are supplied by the second defendant, the bill discounting facility Could be adjusted and bill discounting facility was for a fixed sum.
6. First defendant had agreed for the said facility and on account of nonpayment of the amount by the first defendant in respect of the bill discounting facility, suit came to be filed. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR
7. In the meantime, a memo came to be filed by the plaintiff bringing it to the notice of the Court about the developments in the case.
8. Memo reads as under:
"It is submitted that 1st defendant The Mysore Lamp Works Limited represented that they would pay the plaintiff Rs.1.07,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore seven lakhs only) as against the claim of Rs.1,60,88,558/- made by the plaintiff in 1) O.S.7838/2001, 2) O.S.7869/2001, 3) O.S.7870/2001, 4) O.S.7915/2001, 5) O.S 7924/2001, 6) O.S.8254/2001, 7) O.S.8257/2001, 8) O.S.8279/2001, 9) O.S.8280/2001, 10) O.S.8325/2001, 11) O.S.8326/2001, (12)O.S.8433/2001, 13) O.S.8468/2001, 14) O.S.8444/2001. The plaintiff has received a consolidated sum of Rs.1,07,00,000/- towards all the above 14 suits and the proportionate amount received in this case is Rs.3,92,457/- (Rupees Three Lakhs ninty two thousand four hundred and fifty seven only).
This amount is received from 1st defendant and therefore the plaintiff does not press the suit against defendant No.1. However the plaintiff continuous its claim to recover the amounts stated in the plaint less Rs.3,92,457/- from defendant No.2.
Wherefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1 as not pressed in the interest of equity and justice." -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR
9. It is contended that instead of considering the memo, in proper perspective, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned order. Said order is assailed in all these revision petition by the plaintiff.
10. Sri Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the plaintiff/revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that plaintiff had only sought for closure of the case in respect of first defendant, but learned trial Judge, without proper application of the mind, has closed the entire suit, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Counsel for respondent is absent.
12. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, in the first place, the trial Judge was not required to pass any orders based on a memo.
14. As per the civil rules of practice, counsel for a party may bring it to the notice of the Court, any development in the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR case by way of written submission which is called memorandum (in short 'memo').
15. Any judicial order that needs to be made, unless some concession is given, is on an application to be filed by the party which is called interlocutory application (for short 'I.A.').
16. In other words, a judicial order affecting the rights of the parties can only be passed based on an interlocutory application, not on a memo.
17. In the case on hand, even though there is a specific prayer by the plaintiff as per the contents of the memo to close the case as against the first defendant (which is a concession by plaintiff), the learned trial Judge over read the contents of the memo and closed the entire suit, affecting the rights of the plaintiff.
18. Therefore, learned trial Judge exceeded in his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
19. Hence the impugned order, insofar as second defendant is concerned, needs to be set aside and the suit is to be proceeded insofar as second defendant is concerned. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR
20. Moreover, based on the rival contentions, issues have been framed and evidence of the plaintiff is also recorded.
21. At that stage, plaintiff could have kept quiet without filing the memo. But having filed the memo, obtained an adverse order detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff.
22. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that when once issues are framed in a suit, the trial Court while disposing of the main suit must answer all issues.
23. In the case on hand, acting on the memo the trial Judge has not recorded any findings on the issue, but closed the suit.
24. A suit can either be dismissed or decreed. There is no closure of the suit. Even withdrawal of the suit amount to a de cree.
25. Therefore, the learned trial Judge without exercising the power under Order XX of Code of Civil Procedure especially having framed the issues under Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure, interdicting the suit that too based on a memo filed by the plaintiff has resulted in miscarriage of justice, resulting -8- NC: 2025:KHC:45583 CRP No. 26 of 2012 HC-KAR in seeking interference of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.
26. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order in O.S.No.7924/2001, on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 12) is hereby set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal insofar as second defendant is concerned, in accordance with law.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR