Bangalore District Court
That Soon After Receipt Of Goods They ... vs After Repeated Phone Calls After ... on 30 March, 2022
25 COM.O.S.7955/2018
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.DEVARAJA BHAT.M., B.COM, LL.B.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.7955/2018
BETWEEN:
M/s Hopewell
Manufacturing & Exports
Private Limited, Sri.
Ayyappa Complex, 2nd
Floor, 1/1, Dinnur,
Sultanpalya Main Road,
(Opp : Pushpanjali
Theatre), R T Nagar PO,
Bengaluru 560 032,
represented by its
Managing Director.
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri.
P.H. Ramalingam -
Advocate)
AND
1. Sri. Varadaraj Fruit
Products Private
Limited, Head office &
Billing Address, B-XX-
25 COM.O.S.7955/2018
3181- B, Gurudeva
Nagar, Sigma Scan Road,
District Ludhiana - 141
012, Punjab,
represented by its
Director, Mr. Neeraj
Poddar.
2. Sri. Varadaraja Fruit
Products Private
Limtied, Factory at
Tiruthani Road, N R Pet,
Village Krishnapuram,
Chittoor - 517 419,
Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its
Director, Mr. Neeraj
Poddar.
3. Mr. Ashwani,
Purchase Officer of Sri.
Varadaraja Fruit
Products Private
Limited, C/o Asianlak
Health Foods Limited,
V.P.O. Jandiali,
Chandigarh Road, Near
Kohara, District
Ludhiana, 141 112,
Punjab.
: DEFENDANTS
(Defendants are
represented by M/s G.
Raghunandan and
Associates- Advocates)
25 COM.O.S.7955/2018
Date of Institution of the
02.11.2018
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for recovery of money under
pronote, suit for Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of
declaration & Possession, Civil Procedure Code and after
Suit for injunction etc.) leave to defend is granted the
same became a regular suit.
Date of commencement of -
recording of evidence
Date of First Case
- Not held -
Management Hearing
Time taken for disposal from
the date of Conclusion of 6 days
Arguments
Date on which judgment 30.03.2022
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 04 28
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit initially filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of Rs.15,41,159/- along with future interest @ 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization.
25 COM.O.S.7955/20182. The contentions of the Plaintiff in brief are as follows:-
That the Plaintiff Company Manufacturers and Exporters of Mango Pulp, in that connection the Defendants have raised purchase order and requested the Plaintiff for supply of Totapuri Mango Pulp in Aseptic in Drum Packing, that the Purchase Order, the Plaintiff has supplied in Aseptic bag packing Totapuri Mango Pulp to the Defendants and raised Invoices and payment should be made within 20 days from the date of respective invoices failing which interest will be charges at the rate of 18% per annum, that the Defendant assured and promised the Plaintiff that soon after receipt of goods they will make payment as per invoices raised by the Plaintiff, however even after acknowledging the receipt of goods they have failed to make the payment as assured and promised by them, that the Plaintiff has made several phone calls and has made several requests communicated to the Defendants through e-mails and whatsapp messages seeking to expedite the amount due to the Plaintiff as promised by them, but in spite of it they have failed to comply the demands made by the Plaintiff, that the Defendants after repeated phone calls after continuous follow up persuasion paid a portion of the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- covering a portion of the 1 st Invoice above mentioned this leaving a huge balance payable by them to the tune of Rs.25 COM.O.S.7955/2018
16,80,512/-, hence the Defendants are liable to pay the balance of total invoices amount cited above of Rs. 16,80,512 along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices till the payments are cleared, on 19.07.2018 left with no other alternative remedy was compelled to issue the legal notice to the Defendants and calls upon them to pay the balance of the total invoices amount of Rs. 16,80,512/- along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices, within 15 days from the date of the notice as otherwise they shall be liable to pay the said sum with compounding interest thereon, failing which the Plaintiff will be constrained to initiate legal action under Civil and Criminal law against them holding they are unable to pay the legally payable debts in which case they are also liable for all costs and consequences thereof, that the Defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 though they received the legal notice dated 19.07.2018 sent by the Plaintiff have not issued any reply nor complied the terms of the legal notice, that the Plaintiff submits the receipt of the legal notice on 27.09.2018 the Defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 2,85,798/- towards part payment of the dues, that the Plaintiff submits that the balance which the Defendants are still due to the Plaintiff is quantified as Rs. 13,96,148/- along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices which amounts to 15,41,159/- which the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff and the Defendants 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 are jointly and severally due to the Plaintiff, that the Defendant No.3 is returned to sender with a postal shara stating that "Addressee is left to Ludhiana" that the Plaintiff on 18.09.2018 lodged a Police Complaint to the R.T. Nagar Police, in turn they have issued an acknowledgment for having received the complaint, that as per the purchase order, the Plaintiff has supplied in Aseptic bag packing Totapuri Mango Pulp to the Defendants and raised Invoices and payment should be made within 20 days from the date of respective invoice/s failing which interest will be charged at the rate of 18% per annum, that the Defendants after repeated phone calls after continuous follow up persuasion paid a portion of the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- covering a portion of the 1 st Invoice above mentioned this leaving a huge balance payable by them to the tune of Rs. 16,80,512/- and after the legal notice a sum of Rs. 2,85,798/- towards part payments of the dues was paid thus now the amount due by the Defendant to the Plaintiff works out to a sum of Rs. 13,96,148/- along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices which amounts to Rs. 15,41,159/-, that on 19.07.2018 the Plaintiff caused legal notice to the Defendants and hence he has filed this suit for the above - mentioned relief.25 COM.O.S.7955/2018
3. The Defendants have filed I.A. under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of Civil Procedure Code along with his written statement. The said I.A. was allowed and the Defendants are permitted to defend the suit. Hence, this suit is treated this as a regular suit for trial and to allowed them to file written statement.
4. The contentions in the said written statement, in brief, are as follows:-
That the averments made in Para No.4 stating that the Plaintiff Company is the Manufactures and Exporters of Mango Pulp are true and correct, that the further averments that the Defendants have raised purchase orders and requested the Plaintiff for supply of Totapuri Mango Pulp in Aseptic Bag in Drum Packaging, that as per the purchase order the Plaintiff has supplied Aseptic Bag in Drum Packaging Totapuri Mango Pulp to the Defendants and raised invoices, that payments should be made within 20 days from the date of respective invoices failing which interest will be charges at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of invoice are false and incorrect and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof, that the transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendants is not limited to the invoices mentioned in the Plaint but the Plaintiff have been supplying the material to the different branches of the Defendants under running 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 account and intentionally the Plaintiff has not stated the same and they have confined themselves to only 4 transactions with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain for themselves, that the Defendants have paid the entire amount, for the good quality products supplied by the Plaintiff on different occasions through the accounts of the Defendants Head office and Branch officers, that the Plaintiff has intentionally suppressed such transactions and therefore, the Plaintiff has not come with clean hand before this Court,on the said ground itself the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed, that the Defendants assured and promised the Plaintiff that soon after receipt of goods they will make payment as per invoice raised, however even after acknowledging the receipt of the goods have failed to make payment as assured, that the Plaintiff in this connection has made several phone calls and has made several requests communicated to the Defendants through emails and whatsapp message seeking to expedite the amount due to the Plaintiff as promised by them but in spite of it they gave failed to comply the demands made by the Plaintiff are false and incorrect and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof, thereafter continuos follow up and repeated phone calls the Defendants have made payment of portion of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, that the Defendant are liable to pay Rs. 16,80,512/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum are false and incorrect, further 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 averments that the Plaintiff on 19.07.2018 issued legal notice calling upon Defendant to pay Rs. 16,80,512/- is not known to the Defendants, that the Defendants even after receipt of notice have not replied not complied with the terms of the legal notice is false and incorrect, the averments to receipt of the legal notice the Defendants have made payment of Rs. 2,85,798/- towards part payment of dues are false and incorrect and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same, that the balance due to the Plaintiff is quantified as Rs. 13,96,148/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices which amounts to Rs. 15,41,159/- which the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff and the Defendant are jointly and severally die to pay are false and incorrect, that the Defendant No.3 is returned to sender with postal shara stating "addressee is left to Ludhiana" is not known to the Defendant, that the Plaintiff had lodged a Police Complaint to RT Nagar Police Station and that the Plaintiff has furnished original documents are not known to the Defendants, that the are liable to Rs. 15,41,150/- . that the cause of action arose on 19.07.2018, that the Plaintiff has supplied Mango Pulp to the Defendants under the four invoices mentioned by the Plaintiff, that the supply of materials was of inferior quality and the same could not be used by the Defendants for the purpose for which the order was placed, that the Defendants have brought the 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 same to the notice of the Plaintiff through e-mails which has been duly reciprocated by the Plaintiff stating that manufacturing and expiry date, Batch Code Printed Stickers were not made available on the Goods supplied and that the bags in which the material was supplied was bearing in the year as 2015, that goes to show that the material, which is consumable and perishable, supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants were of inferior and out of date quality and hence, the same could not be utilized by the Defendant, that the Defendant have brought the same to the notice of Plaintiff at the earliest and debit notes were also raised against the Plaintiff as communicates and confirmed through emails, accordingly after deducting the value of inferior quality materials supplied, the Defendants have made payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs.
2,85,798/- being the amount for the material which was usable out of the total quantity of consignment supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, the materials supplied by the Plaintiff was of inferior quality and could not be used by the Defendants, however, considering the good relationship, the parties had between them, the Defendants have sent payments as stated herein the above material which could be used by the Defendants, that the Defendants are not liable pay any amount to the Plaintiff much less the one claimed in the Plaintiff or in the notice dated 19.07.2018 since the material supplied was 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 inferior in quality, that the Plaintiff has approached this court suppressing the material facts with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain for themselves, that the Plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and on the said ground itself the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to dismissed.
5. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants have failed to make the payment under the Invoices mentioned in Para 5 of the Plaint ?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the current and future interest ? If so, at what rate ?
3. What Order ?
6. The Plaintiff has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. The Defendants have not adduced any evidence and not produced any documents.
7. I have heard the arguments of the Advocate for the Plaintiff. He has also submitted his written arguments. The Advocate for the Defendants has not submitted any arguments.
25 COM.O.S.7955/20188. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
1. Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative.
3. Issue No.3 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 :- The PW.1 has deposed that the Plaintiff Company is the Manufacturers and Exporters of Mango Pulp. The Defendants at Para No. 4 of their written statement as admitted this fact.
10. The PW.1 has further deposed that in that connection the Defendants have raised purchase order and requested the Plaintiff for supply of Totapuri Mango Pulp in Aseptic in Drum Packing, that as per the Purchase Order, the Plaintiff has supplied in Aseptic bag packing Totapuri Mango Pulp to the Defendants and raised Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4/Invoices and payment should be made within 20 days from the date of respective invoices failing which interest will be charges at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of invoices.
25 COM.O.S.7955/201811. The Defendants have contended that the said transaction is not limited though Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4/Invoices, but Plaintiff has been supplying the material to the different branches of the Defendant under running account and intentionally the Plaintiff has not stated the same and they have confined to only four transactions as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain for themselves, that the Defendants have paid the entire amount, for the good quality products supplied by the Plaintiff, on different occasion through the accounts of the Defendant's Head Office and Branch Offices and the Plaintiff has suppressed the said transactions. From the said contentions, the Defendants have deemed to have been admitted the transactions as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 also. Their contention is that they have paid entire amount. The plea of discharge has to be proved by the Defendants. But they have failed to prove said plea.
12. The PW.1 has further deposed that the Defendant assured and promised the Plaintiff that soon after receipt of goods they will make payment as per invoices raised by the Plaintiff, however even after acknowledging the receipt of goods they have failed to make the payment as assured and promised by them, that the Plaintiff has made several phone calls and has made several requests communicated to the 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 Defendants through e-mails and whatsapp messages seeking to expedite the amount due to the Plaintiff as promised by them, but in spite of it they have failed to comply the demands made by the Plaintiff.
13. The PW.1 has further deposed that the Defendants after repeated phone calls after continuous follow up persuasion paid a portion of the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- covering a portion of the 1st Invoice above mentioned this leaving a huge balance payable by them to the tune of Rs. 16,80,512/-, hence the Defendants are liable to pay the balance of total invoices amount cited above of Rs. 16,80,512/- along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices till the payments are cleared.
14. The PW.1 has further deposed that on 19.07.2018 left with no other alternative remedy was compelled to issue the Ex.P.5/Legal Notice to the Defendants and call upon them to pay the balance of the total invoices amount of Rs. 16,80,512/- along with 18% per annum from the date of respective invoices.
15. The PW.1 has further deposed that after receipt of the Ex.P.5/Legal Notice, on 27.09.2018 the Defendants have paid a 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 sum of Rs. 2,85,798/- towards part payment of the dues.
16. It is to be noted that at Para No. 12 of the written statement, the Defendants have clearly admitted that the Plaintiff has supplied Mango Pulp to them under Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4/Invoices. However, there contention is that the supply of materials was of inferior quality and the same could not be used by the Defendant for which the order was placed, that they have brought the same to the notice of the Plaintiff through emails which has been reciprocated by the Plaintiff stating that manufacturing and expiry date, Batch Code, Printed Sticker were not made available on the goods supplied and that the bags in which the material was supplied was bearing the year as 2015, that the same goes to show that the material which is perishable and consumable, supplied by the Plaintiff were of inferior and out of date quality and the same could not be utilized by the Defendant, that the Defendants have brought the same to the notice of Plaintiff at the earliest and debit notes were also raised against the Plaintiff as communicated and confirmed through e-mails. The Defendants have categorically admitted that they have made payments of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,85,798/- to the Plaintiff. However, their contention is that after deducting the value of inferior quality materials supplied, the Defendants have made the said 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 payments deemed the amount for the material which was usable out of the total quantity of consignment supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. Though the PW.1 has cross- examined in part, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version. Further, most of the contentions of the Plaintiff including the payment of Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 2,85,798/- and a transactions under Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are clearly admitted by the Defendants. The Defendants in one breath have contended that they have paid entire amount and in another breath have contended that they have paid the amount after deducting the value of inferior quality materials supplied. The said contention has to be proved by the Defendants. But, they have failed to prove the said contentions by adducing any oral evidence or producing any documentary evidence.
17. As discussed by me earlier, in this case, the Defendants have not specifically denied the allegations in the Plaint. They have also made above-mentioned admissions. When such being the case, in the absence of the specific denial of the allegations of the Plaint in the written statement, the Court is empowered to pronounce the judgment as per Order VIII Rule 5 (2) of Civil Procedure Code.
25 COM.O.S.7955/201818. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 1999 - S.C. - 3381 (Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows :-
"29. As pointed out earlier, the Court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the Defendant in his written statement nor the Court should proceed to pass judgement blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the Defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the Court. In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the Defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Before passing the judgement against the Defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgement could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgement against the Defendant who has not filed the written statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgement without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the Court, may, in 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 its discretion, require any such fact to be proved"
used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Order VIII, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10 of Order VIII."
19. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2000 - Delhi - 60 (Relaxo Rubber Limited vs. M/s. Selection Footwear ), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows :-
"3. Keeping in perspective the fact that at least four opportunities for filing written statement have not been availed of by the defendants I feel this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10. However, since no defence has come forward, it would be, to my mind, the duty of the Court to consider the correctness of the plaintiffs case. For this reason the plaint as well as documents filed along with it were perused and arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiffs."
20. Further, the provision in Order VIII Rule 5 (2) of Civil Procedure Code is similar to that of Order VIII Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2000 - Karnataka - 234 (Syed Ismail vs. Smt. Shamshia Begum), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows :-
25 COM.O.S.7955/2018"3. The impugned order does not disclose the nature of pleading placed by the plaintiff and whether there is prima facie material to grant a decree in his favour. A judgement in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic. The Court has to consider the case of the plaintiff and grant a decree in his favour. The learned trial Judge has not referred to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the documents produced by him to substantiate even a prima facie case for grant of a decree in his favour. Therefore, the judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic on failure of the opposite party to put his defence. The Court can grant a judgement in favour of the party only upon consideration of the case of the plaintiff including appreciation of pleadings and evidence."
21. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2007 - Delhi - 164 (Union of India vs. Ram Prakash Juneja ), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as follows :-
"4.....The judgement pronounced under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code should indicate that the Court has applied its mind to merits of the case before decreeing the case. The said judgement must satisfy the requirements of Section 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code and the Court should go into the case and pronounced its judgement upon the facts, so far as they were before it. A mere statement that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 Code cannot be sustained."
22. The principles emerging from the precedents are that exercise of power under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is similar to that of Order VIII Rule 5 (2) of Civil Procedure Code, for pronouncement of judgment is not mechanical. This is an exercise of judicial discretion. The Court must consider the pleadings and the documents including any admission and should pronounce the judgment if the case does not involve disputed questions of facts. Such exercise must be informed by reason, application of judicial mind and consideration of the pleadings of the parties. However, in this case the Plaintiff has also adduced oral evidence of PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P26.
23. From the above-mentioned evidence of PW.1 and various documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26, it is very clear that the Defendants are in default of repayment of the said amount. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 15,41,159/- with interest from the Defendants.
24. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are dated 10.04.2018, 11.04.2018 and 16.04.2018. The Ex.P.5/Legal Notice was issued on 19.07.2018. This suit is filed on 02.11.2018. When such being the case, the 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 suit is filed within limitation period. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 :- The Plaintiff has prayed the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. In Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, it is clearly mentioned that interest will be charged at 18% per annum if payment is not made within due date. Hence, there is a contractual rate for the said rate of interest between the parties. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 15,41,159/- with current and future interest at 18% per annum only. Hence, by considering the aspects of limitation, entitlement of the claim of the Plaintiff and rate of interest, I answer this Issue in "Affirmative".
26. Issue No.3 : -Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed.
The Defendants are hereby directed to pay, to the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.15,41,159/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
25 COM.O.S.7955/2018The Defendants are hereby directed to pay cost of this suit to the Plaintiff. The Advocate for the Plaintiff is directed to file Memorandum of Cost before the Office within 5 days from today as required under Rule 99 and 100 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendants to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, verified and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2022).
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW.1 Sri. S. Vaasudevan LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 PLAINTIFF Ex.P-1 to 4 4 Tax Invoices.
Ex.P-5 Office Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P-6 Postal receipts.
Ex.P-7 & 8 Unserved postal cover.
Ex.P-9 Acknowledgment issued by the Police
Ex.P-10 Registration Certificate.
Ex.P-11 Receipt issued by the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs.
Ex.P-12 & 13 Attested Copy of Board Resolutions.
Ex.P-14 Invoice and dispatch detail.
Ex.P-15 to 23 True Extract of Statement of Account. Ex.P-24 to 26 Attested Copies of Consignment Notes.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL 25 COM.O.S.7955/2018 (DEVARAJA BHAT.M), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.