Bangalore District Court
Prakash J vs Chandu Alias Lawrence on 13 August, 2025
KABC010182752021
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.4684/2021
Plaintiff: Sri. J.Prakash
s/o Jaganath
aged about 60 years,
residing at No. 290, C Loop Road,
Ideal Home Township
Raja Rajeshwari nagar,
Bangalore 560 102.
(By Sri P.V.Raghupathi, Advocate)
-V/S-
Defendant: Sri Chandu @ Lawrence
Proprietor of Flying Horse India
s/o not known
aged about 45 years
No. 233, 7th cross, Anubhavanagar,
2
OS No. 4684/2021
Judgment
Nagarbhavi main road,
Bengaluru 560 072.
(By Sri MJH, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 01.09.2021
Nature of the suit: Recovery Suit
Date of commencement of 30.09.2022
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 13.08.2025
pronounced:
Duration: Years Months Day
03 11 12
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying to pass judgment and decree against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only ) with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the suit plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is a businessman and one Mr. S.K.Dinesh is a well known person to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was looking 3 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment to buy a property in Bengaluru. Mr. S.K.Dinesh was aware that plaintiff is intending to purchase a property and the defendant was introduced by said S.K.Dinesh and at that time the defendant had informed that he is a good real estate agent and he is a proprietor of Flying Horse India and he will help the plaintiff to purchase the property. Accordingly the defendant and S.K. Dinesh have informed to the plaintiff that the vacant sites are available at bearing No. 2, old khatha NO. 26/33 and 26/38, old CMC khatha No. 63 and 64, BBMP No. 2509/26/33/63 and 64/2 carved out of 02 acres 02 guntas of land situated at Nagadevahalalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 117 feet by 42 feet in all measuring 4,914 sq ft. which has been mortgaged with Union Bank of India and S.K. Dinesh and the defendant have informed to the plaintiff that the borrower one Mr. B.N. Murthy had defaulted in payment of loan and now that the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru in OA No. 552/2017 passed an order in favor of the Bank and the same has come up for E- auction. The defendant has informed that the sale consideration is Rs. 4 crores and that S.K. Dinesh and the defendant agreed to help the plaintiff in purchasing the same through bank auction. Further there was a condition that the purchaser has to pay amount before auction at DRT, at that time the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on 20.09.2019 from the plaintiff through RTGS State Bank of 4 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment India, Rajarajeshwari nagar branch and the defendant had stated that the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is to be deposited before the DRT for bidding which is the initial deposit amount for auction. But the DRT insisted to remit the auction amount through the purchaser account i.e. the account of the plaintiff Hence, the plaintiff paid the entire auction amount through his account only. After that the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant before auction.
3. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a successful bidder and he had paid entire auction amount of Rs. 1,39,90,000/- to the DRT and the DRT issued Sale Certificate on 26.10.2019 in respect of the schedule property. The plaintiff visited the said property and came to know that the said property is under litigation since 20 years and the defendant and said S.K. Dinesh played fraud and forced the plaintiff to purchase said property. The plaintiff requested many times the defendant to return said amount of RS. 10 lakhs. The plaintiff also sustained loss to the tune of RS. 1,60,00,00/- and the defendant has been unnecessarily harassed the plaintiff.
4. The defendant received Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) through RTGS, SBI, Rajarajeshwari nagar branch in favor of defendant`s company by name Flying Horse India.
5OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment But he failed to return the said amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained to issue legal notice to the defendant on 12.8.2021 calling upon the defendant to repay the said amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was sent through RPAD to the defendant address, the defendant had acknowledged the receipt of the same on 16.08.2018, but failed to comply the same. The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest @ 18% p.a. from 20.9.2019 to 01.09.2021 amounting to Rs. 3,15,000/- and also notice charges of Rs. 10,000/-, totally he is liable to pay Rs. 13,25,000/-. Hence this suit. The cause of action arose to file the suit on 20.09.2019.
5. After the service of suit summons, the defendant has appeared through his counsel and filed the Written Statement and contended that he is running a Security Service named Flying Horse India and he is the proprietor of the same and the plaintiff was introduced through Dinesh and the plaintiff sought service of the defendant to identify properties and it was agreed by the plaintiff that he would pay the service charges and the commission to the defendant if he helped in identifying such properties and that there was no contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendant for such service.
6OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment
6. The defendant further contended that the defendant had identified the property bearing No. 2, old khatha No. 26/33 and 26/38, old CMC khatha No. 63 and 64, BBMP No. 2509/26/33/63 and 64/2 carved out of 02 acres 02 guntas of land situated at Nagadevahalalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 117 feet by 42 feet in all measuring 4,914 sq ft. and the plaintiff expressed his willingness to purchase the same. The defendant submits that the plaintiff who was interested in purchasing the property had approached the United Bank of India and after having inspected and verified the title deeds and the order passed in OA 552 of 2017 the plaintiff was convinced and intended to purchase the same by participating in the bank auction and after which the plaintiff had paid to the defendant a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs being his service charges/commission and the same was transferred to the defendant`s account through RTGS on 20.09.2019. Later the plaintiff was declared as a successful bidder in the auction. The defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a false complaint against the defendant and others with Rajarajeshwari nagar Police Station on 2.10.2020 which is registered as NCR No. 438 of 2020 and the defendant was summoned to the police station where he had given his explanation and statement with regard to the plaintiff`s complaint.
7OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment
7. The averments of the plaintiff that the defendant received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is admitted by the defendant, but same has been received towards the defendant`s service charges/commission and the defendant has also disclosed the same in his Income Tax returns for the year 2020-21. the defendant has admitted regarding the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff. But the defendant has denied the other averments made in para 6 and 7 of the plaint and prays to dismiss the suit as the amount paid by the plaintiff is towards service charges/commission and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
8. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, following Issues are framed by my predecessor-in-office ;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had received sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from him, on 20.09.2019 through RTGS, State Bank of India, Rajarajeshwari nagar Branch, in favour of Flying horse India Account belonging to defendant by stating that the said amount is required for payment as initial amount to purchase the property in public auction before the DRT, which was mortgaged to Union of India by one B.N.Murthy?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has not paid the said amount before the DRT, as initial payment at the time of public auction of property bearing Site No.2, Old khatha no.26/33 and 26/38, BBMP 8 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment No.2509/26/33/63 and 64/2, which is described in para no.2 of the suit plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had paid entire auction amount of Rs.1,39,90,000/- for the purchase of aforesaid property before DRT?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has not refunded Rs.10,00,000/- received by him on 20.09.2019?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and interest of Rs.3,15,000/- on the said amount at 18% per annum from 20.09.2019 to 01.09.2021 from the defendant?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief, as prayed for?
7. What Order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. Ten lakhs being his service charges/commission and the same was transferred to the defendant`s account ?
9. After framing of the Issues, the case was posted for recording of evidence. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW.1 and he got marked Ex.P. 1 to 9. On the other hand the defendant is 9 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment examined as DW. 1 and other two witnesses as DW.2 and 3 and he has got marked Ex.D.1 to 9.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and the written argument submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff and other materials on record.
11. Having done so, this court answers to the aforesaid Issues as follows:
Issue No.1 & 2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : Does not survive for
consideration
Issue No.4 to 6; In the Negative
Additional Issue No.1; In the Affirmative
Issue No.7 As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1, 2, 4 TO 6 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 : As these Issues are interconnected to each other, they are taken up simultaneously so as to avoid repetition of facts.
10OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that the plaintiff is a businessman and one Mr. S.K.Dinesh is a well known person to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was looking to buy a property in Bengaluru. Mr. S.K.Dinesh was aware that plaintiff is intending to purchase a property and the defendant was introduced by said S.K.Dinesh and at that time the defendant had informed that he is a good real estate agent and he is a proprietor of Flying Horse India and he will help the plaintiff to purchase the property. Accordingly the defendant and S.K. Dinesh have informed to the plaintiff that the vacant sites are available at bearing No. 2, old khatha No. 26/33 and 26/38, old CMC khatha No. 63 and 64, BBMP No. 2509/26/33/63 and 64/2 carved out of 02 acres 02 guntas of land situated at Nagadevahalalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 117 feet by 42 feet in all measuring 4,914 sq ft. which has been mortgaged with Union Bank of India and S.K. Dinesh and the defendant have informed to the plaintiff that the borrower one Mr. B.N. Murthy had defaulted in payment of loan and now that the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru in OA No. 552/2017 passed an order in favor of the Bank and the same has come up for auction. The defendant has informed that the sale consideration is Rs. 4 crores and that S.K. Dinesh and the defendant agreed to help the plaintiff in purchasing the same through bank auction. Further there was a condition that the purchaser has to pay amount before auction at DRT, at that 11 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment time the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on 20.09.2019 from the plaintiff through RTGS State Bank of India, Rajarajeshwari nagar branch and the defendant had stated that the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is to be deposited before the DRT for bidding which is the initial deposit amount for auction. But the DRT insisted to remit the auction amount through the purchaser account i.e. the account of the plaintiff . Hence, the plaintiff paid the entire auction amount through his account only. After that the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant before auction.
13. It is further deposed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a successful bidder and he had paid entire auction amount of Rs. 1,39,90,000/- to the DRT and the DRT issued Sale Certificate on 26.10.2019 in respect of the schedule property. The plaintiff visited the said property and came to know that the said property is under litigation since 20 years and the defendant and said S.K. Dinesh played fraud and forced the plaintiff to purchase said property. The plaintiff requested many times the defendant to return said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. The plaintiff also sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 1,60,00,00/- and the defendant has been unnecessarily harassed the plaintiff.
12OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment
14. The defendant received Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) through RTGS, SBI, Rajarajeshwari nagar branch in favor of defendant`s company by name Flying Horse India. But he failed to return the said amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained to issue legal notice to the defendant on 12.8.2021 calling upon the defendant to repay the said amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was sent through RPAD to the defendant address, the defendant had acknowledged the receipt of the same on 16.08.2018, but failed to comply the same.
15. In support of his case the plaintiff got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9. He was subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant. During the course of the cross examination he has deposed as follows;
ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ನನಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಾದ ಸೈಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ಕೊಡಿಸುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದು ಮತ್ತು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸರ್ವೀಸ್ ಚಾರ್ಜ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕಮೀಷನ್ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಸಹ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ನನಗೆ ಬಿ.ಎನ್ ಮೂರ್ತಿರವರು United Bank of India ದಲ್ಲಿ ಒತ್ತೆ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಡಿ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವಿದ್ದ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಇದ್ದ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಆಸ್ತಿ Commercial Property ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾ ಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಆಸ್ತಿ ನಾಗದೇವನಹಳ್ಳಿ ರಿಂಗ್ ರಸ್ತೆ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ 13 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ Commercial Complex ಗಳು ಇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು 1 ಕೋಟಿ 40 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಡಿಸುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿ ದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಸೈಟ್ ನೋಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯನ್ನು ಸೈಟಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವೆಂತೆ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ನನಗೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಜರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದ ಮತ್ತು ಮೂಲದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸುವ ಜವಬ್ದಾ ರಿ ನನ್ನದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ . ಅದರಂತೆ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು United Bank of India, K.G Road ಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕ್ ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜರ್ ರವರು ನನಗೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಹಾರಾಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಹೇಗೆ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಮತ್ತು ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಮ್ಯಾ ನೇಜರ್ ರವರು ವಿವರಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕಿನವರು ಹರಾಜು ಮೊತ್ತ ರೂ. 1,39,40,000/- ಎಂದು ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಮೊತ್ತದ ಶೇ. 10 ರಷ್ಟನ್ನು ಇಎಂಡಿ ಎಂದು ಡಿ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಗೆ ಡೆಪಾಸಿಟ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕಿನವರು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 24.09.2019 ರಂದು ಹರಾಜಿನ ಕೊನೆಯ ದಿವಸ ಎಂದು ಸಹ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಇಎಂಡಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ದಿಃ23.09.2019 ರ ಒಳಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟ ಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸಹ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನೆಲ್ಲಾ ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಕೊಂಡು ನಾನು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ದಾಖಲೆ ನಾನು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ದಾಖಲೆ ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
14OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment ಕಮೀಷನ್ ಹಣ ಎಂದು ಶೇ.1 ರಷ್ಟನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗೆ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ದ್ದೆ.
On perusal of the above cross examination of PW.1 , it discloses that PW. 1 had agreed to purchase the property as mentioned in the plaint which was identified by the defendant. Even he has admitted to pay service charges/commission to the defendant and as per Ex.P.1 to 3 he has paid Rs. 10 lakhs which shows he has paid the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the defendant agency. Even it is admitted by the plaintiff in the cross examination. Further the plaintiff has admitted the document shown to him during the course of the cross examination which is marked as Ex.D.1. The said document discloses that the plaintiff paid initial deposit in auction proceedings. Further no document is produced by the plaintiff to show that he had paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the defendant for the purpose of paying the said amount as initial deposit to DRT, during auction. In the absence of said evidence by the plaintiff , the contention of the plaintiff that he had paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the defendant for the purpose of payment towards initial deposit at the time of auction of the property, cannot be accepted.
16. On the contrary the defendant who is examined as DW. 1 has deposed that he is running a Security Service 15 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment named Flying Horse India and he is the proprietor of the same and the plaintiff was introduced through Dinesh and the plaintiff sought service of the defendant to identify properties and it was agreed by the plaintiff that he would pay the service charges and the commission to the defendant if he helped in identifying such properties and that there was no contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendant for such service. Accordingly the plaintiff purchased the property through E-auction. He has deposed that he had received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, but same has been received towards the defendant`s service charges/commission and the defendant has also disclosed the same in his Income Tax returns for the year 2020-21.
17. In support of his evidence the defendant has got marked Ex.D.1 to D.9. He has also examined two other witnesses as DW. 2 and DW.3 , who have also supported the contentions of the defendant and deposes during the course of the cross examination by the plaintiff with regard to payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as commission towards defendant with respect to the purchase of the property in auction. On perusal of Ex.P. 1 to 3 and admissions of PW.1 and also Ex.D.1, it shows that the plaintiff paid Rs. 10 lakhs to the defendant towards commission/service charges to purchase the property by the plaintiff. Even in Ex.D.5 the I.T. Returns of the defendant, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been shown as commission. The 16 OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he had paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant for the payment of initial deposit during the auction proceedings. Even there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant as an initial deposit in auction proceedings. In the absence of any cogent evidence by the plaintiff, his contention regarding payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant for payment of initial deposit at auction proceedings is not tenable. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons the Issue No. 1,2, and 4 to 6 answered in the Negative and Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.3; The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove the case which has been discussed in other Issues. In view of the reasons assigned on other Issues, this Issue No.3 does not survive for consideration.
19. ISSUE No.7 :- For the discussions made above, this court proceeds to pass the following:
17OS No. 4684/2021 Judgment ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr.Shr/SGI, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of August, 2025).
GANGAPPA I Digitally PATIL signed by GANGAPPA I PATIL (Gangappa Irappa Date: 2025.08.20 10:56:10 +0530 Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 J.Prakash List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1&2 Two bank challens.
Ex.P.3 Bank accounts statement.
Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice dated 12.08.2021.
Ex.P.5 Postal receipt.
Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.8 Income tax return for the year 2020-21.
18
OS No. 4684/2021
Judgment
Ex.P.9 Notarized true copy Electrical Contractor License.
(Original is produced for inspection) List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Chandru Lawrence D.W.2 Sampathkumar D.W.3 Dinesh S.K.
List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Letter of DRT regarding E-auction Tender Document Ex.D.2 Complaint filed by the defendant before Rajarajeshwari nagar P.S. Ex.D.3 Reply notice dated 03.09.2021.
Ex.D.4 Postal receipt.
Ex.D.5 I.T returns for the year 2019-20.
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of Ordersheet in CC No.29657/2021.
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of complaint in PCR No.17328/2021.
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of sworn statement in PCR No.
17328/2021 and cross examination in CC
No.29657/2021.
Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Ordersheet in DRC No.1579/2018.
GANGAPPA I Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I
PATIL
PATIL Date: 2025.08.20 10:56:23 +0530
(Gangappa Irappa Patil)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
19
OS No. 4684/2021
Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(vide separate order)
ORDER
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.