M/S.Nandvi Ginning Factory vs Assistant General Manager on 23 February, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S.Nandvi Ginning Factory vs Assistant General Manager on 23 February, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF FEBRUARY,~j2'e':--o'=._

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUST1CvFwA».--SA. ;2{oI_?IAr-i:~1A   I

C.R.P.NO. 1016/autos
BETWEEN: I I A

I. M/s.Nandvi Ginni-ng Fao't'ory-- 
A registered Part'n,e"1'f--sh:'7_p 
Bardan Gaili, HubI1',_Y' ' it 1  I
Representediby R.AB.,_I\_ieieii_.  

2. Rajashekhartappai'--33asapp'a._N'e'e'li"
Age: 80; year s,» 'QC -.:V'--«.?arVti{1_e'1i_'of '
above Fi.rm_.  I i «  .  
""" "    Petitioners.

(By Sri. ;3ac1i:c;:"N't;Vc:;£,.gcm{aiia, Advocate.)
AND:

Assistant _GeneraI"Mar1'ager,

i2'c,_;'~}:.>.13;:?gad, "iRay.apur,

  

 Respondent.

.iA'I'iIi1iis  filed U/S. 18 of Karnataka Small

 ICause""--Cov--1irts"Act, 1964, against the Judgment dated

-.f'_j-,.,2','._1/2010fin S.C.No.36/2007, on the file of the III
I'+iXdxd"1..=Civi'i Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubli, dismissing the suit
I ~.fi.ie_AdV recovery of money.

 This petition coming on for admission this day,

 "--«th'e"Court made the following:

3;.



IQ

ORDER

The petitioner is calling in questi.oVn-,:t~he Judgment dated 2/1/2010 passed in s.C.Nagsed/l2.Qioi7§"'. by the learned 111 Addl. Civil Judge (S.1";'§3'n:§),,l"'EeIublie:.l The petitioner is the plaintiff t:l"1e..:'sai.r:1'A.s"L3iltlf..f1fl"i::e' suit in question was filed" seekin-glfor*reeovVery of. * money in a sum of Rs.3,000/_§_i:lwhi--e_vh a.oc«-oirdinlfg to the plaintiff was wronglyld.eb_ited{toll"t.lfi~-{account of the plaintiffs. The '1'r.i.a1 Court.iafteryeonsiderling the rival contentions has d§i'szi1isl'sed_Vthe

2) for the petitioner while assailing would contend that the Trial Court 'was'ifivotl-jiistified in this regard. It is Vlio.o'*rater1~--d.ed"=that complaint filed before the had been dismissed without grant l "of costs and_i'f..-herefore in any event cost said to have "-«i..fi;f':J__eeri ineu_i:'red by defendant could not have been ll 3) It is contended that even as per clause lclontained in Ex.D.l namely the mortgage deed, the J;

same does not authorise the defendants to debit the amount since the clause 16 in its entirety"

different aspect with regard to the property and only in such circumstance---»t_h;e 'cost to be debited has been provided the_vrein:,LI if

4) In the light of by l' C the learned counsel forythe Ii havv.e..~perused the judgment of Court after noticing the 2nd plaintiff with regard in the suit and the llt'0-«...§?»_"l14 has come to the conclusion forth by the Plaintiff cannot be lde_ci=eeld., 'i.n"«tl}"1is regard firstly when the V..-p.l_aint_i'ff buefor"e"«th_i_sv Court in a revision and when li't__is;lnoVtic_Ved:'t_h'a.t he Trial Court has appreciated the V oral'ja"sf Weiljj documentary evidence this Court 4C'8.V1'11'1Otlll11Vl"t{"3.1'l'e1'e with the order in this petition. Even 'ie.l4'otl1eVrvvi..se H the argument put forth by the learned.

for the appellant does not appeal to this ll"--._uC«ourt since in any event the fact that the complaint was filed by the plaintiff before the Consumer Forum ~i£

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court