Karnataka High Court
Sri.P.G.S.Krishnan And Anr vs S.J.Dorairaj S/O A Samuel on 21 January, 2020
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.200018/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Sri P.G.S. Krishnan
S/o P.G.S. Narayan,
Aged about 75 years,
Occ: Retired
R/o No.27/2, 6th Cross,
1st Block Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560011.
2. Sri K.S. Balakrishna
S/o Late K.P. Subramaniam,
Aged about Major,
Occ: Retired,
R/o No.16/17, 10th Cross,
II Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Industrial
Investment & Development
Corporation Ltd.,
Having its registered office
At No.49, "Khanija Bhavan",
2
4th Floor, East Wing,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001
Represented by its Zonal Manager.
S.J. Dorairaj S/o A. Samuel
Since deceased by his LRs.
2. Dr. Priya Dorairaj
D/o Late S.J. Dorairaj
Aged about 34 years
R/o "Ramona" No.23
Serpantine Street
Facing Leonard Lane
Richmond Town
Bengaluru - 560 002.
3. Sri Mohan Dorairaj
S/o S.J. Dorairaj
Aged about 34 years
R/o "Ramona" No.23
Serpantine Street
Facing Leonard Lane
Richmond Town
Bengaluru - 560 002.
4. Sri S. Prakash S/o Sri Seetharam,
Aged about Major
R/o No.90/1, Ashwini
11th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru - 560 003.
5. M/s Rekha Cements and Chemicals Ltd.,
(Company in Liquidation)
Represented by Official Liquidator
High Court of Karnataka, Kendriya Sadan
4th Floor, Koramangala
Bengaluru - 560 034.
... Respondents
3
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115
of the CPC, praying to allow this Revision Petition, call for
records and set aside the order dated 17.02.2018 passed
in Civil Miscellaneous case No.03/2011 on the file of the III
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Kalaburagi, the certified
copy of which is at Annexure-A, and to pass any other
appropriate orders that are necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the trial court allowing the Civil Misc. Petition No.3/2011 filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2010 and thereby restoring Misc. Petition No.73/2009 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 31 (1) (a) and (aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 instituted proceedings in Misc. Petition No.73/2009 under 4 Section 31(1)(a) and (aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,29,82,310/- with interest at 21% p.a. with quarterly rests from the petitioners. On 31.05.2010 since the respondent No.1 did not adduce evidence, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 filed Civil Misc. Petition No.3/2011 to set aside the aforesaid dismissal order dated 31.05.2010 and for restoration of Misc. Petition No.73/2009 filed by it.
3. After trial, by the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the aforesaid Misc. Petition No.3/2011 filed by the respondent No.1 and restored the Civil Misc. Petition No.73/2009 to its original number and stage. Aggrieved by the said order restoring the Civil Misc. Petition No.73/2009, the respondents No.1 and 2 in the said petition are before this Court by way of the present revision petition.
5
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record including the impugned order. It is not in dispute that in support of its case, the respondent-KSIIDC examined PW.1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 was marked on their behalf. As against this, except cross-examining PW.1, the petitioners herein did not adduce any rebuttal evidence on their side. The trial Court taking into account the unimpeached evidence of PW.1 coupled with the fact that the petitioners herein had not adduced any rebuttal evidence proceeded to allow the said petition filed by the respondents. While doing so, the trial court adopted a liberal and justice oriented approach for the purpose of granting an opportunity to the respondents to prosecute its case on merits.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that, the Court below did not act illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of 6 its jurisdiction occasioning failure of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE NSP