- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1190 OF 2016 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. SUNDARAMMA KRISHNAMURTHY EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST (R), BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, NO.77/4 & 77/5, VAGDEVI VILAS, MUNNEKOLALU, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. SRI K.HARISH. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, VAGDEVI VILAS SCHOOL, MUNNEKOLALU,MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. SRI K.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. PRAMOD.M.BHAT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O MAHABALESHWARA BHAT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIVEK.B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. G.V.SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O G.D.V.PRASAD RAO, PROPRIETOR, M/S. FURNITURE GALAXY Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 NO.949, 24TH MAIN, II PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, UPSTAIRS VIVEKS, BENGALURU-560 078. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Vivek, counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinav R., for the appellants, has appeared in person. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 15.09.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 The plaintiff, G.V. Sridhar, is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling furniture of all varieties in the name and style of 'Furniture Galaxy'. It is said that the first defendant approached him and placed a purchase order on 08.05.2009 for the supply of a wardrobe, study desk and cot that were suitable for students of the school. Along with the purchase order, the defendants also furnished the specifications of the said materials. As per the order, the plaintiff manufactured and supplied 20 wardrobes, 20 study desks, and 20 cots under Bill No. 374 dated 10.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Thousand only). The second defendant took delivery of the goods and acknowledged the same. At the time of placing the order, the first defendant had paid 40% of the advance amount of Rs.3,04,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and Four Thousand only) and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,56,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty-Six Thousand only) at the time of delivery of the goods. On the date of receipt of goods, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to grant some time to pay the balance amount on the ground that the said furniture is to be installed in the student hostel and since sufficient number of students have not yet joined, and they - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 would pay the said amount within September 2009. The plaintiff agreed to the same and made clear that for any delayed payments as per trade and usage, they are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the balance amount payable to him, for which the defendants agreed. However, the defendants neglected to pay the balance amount with interest on or before September 2009. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 14.12.2009 demanding that the defendants pay the balance amount of Rs.4,56,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) with notice charges of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Despite service of notice, the defendants did not come forward to make the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. After service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a written statement. They admitted the supply of goods and the receipt of materials, and the rate of interest. They requested the plaintiff to give specifications of the furniture that he intended to manufacture, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 and accordingly, they placed orders for the supply of the materials. According to the specification as well as the purchase order, the plaintiff has agreed to provide a one-year warranty for the product supplied from the date of completion of work. They noticed that the products supplied by the plaintiff had manufacturing defects. Therefore, they requested the plaintiff to come and inspect the materials that were supplied by him, but the plaintiff did not respond to their request. It is specifically contended by the defendants that they wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 19.09.2009 about the factum of defective and sub-standard furniture, and the products supplied were breaking down and beadings were peeling within weeks of usage. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2015 partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh and Fifty-Nine Thousand only) from the defendants. Hence, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 defendants have filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. 5. Sri.Vivek, counsel, submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in partly decreeing the suit. The impugned Judgment and Decree are contrary to the oral evidence and material on record. Next, he submits that the Trial Court ought to have noticed the evidence of PW1, which demonstrates that he had supplied sub-standard goods. He submitted that admission is the best piece of evidence as held by the Apex Court in AIR 1960 SC 100. A further submission is made that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the terms mentioned in Ex.P.1 - Purchase Order, which demonstrates a one-year service warranty for the materials supplied and the defendants have intimated to the plaintiff regarding the defects in the materials. Counsel vehemently contended that PW1, in his cross- examination, had categorically admitted that he did not rectify the defects and also did not take back the defective products. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 Hence, the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the material evidence on record in the right perspective and has erroneously decreed the suit. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Urging other contentions, counsel submits that the appeal may be allowed. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 7. The point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 8. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the purchase order and failure to pay the amount. It is not in dispute that the defendants placed orders for the supply of certain goods with specification of the materials to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh and Sixty Thousand only). Ex.P.1 is the Purchase order dated 08.05.2009. The defendants paid 40% of the amount. The controversy is about - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 the non-payment of the balance amount. The defendants contend that they were upset about a known problem, i.e., they did not receive the goods that would meet their expectations, and hence, inconvenience was caused by the plaintiff. To substantiate the contention, they placed strong reliance on a note allegedly made by them on a letter dated September 22, 2009. The Trial Court, in extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly declined to place reliance on the said letter, as it was not marked as an exhibit. The reason and the rejection are just and proper. A good deal of argument is canvassed to contend that there is an admission by the plaintiff about the defects. However, there was no effective complaint letter. There is nothing much to discuss about the issue because the pleadings are simple, and the Trial Court referred to the material on record and rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to the principal amount without interest. The conclusion and the findings are just and proper. I find no error in the judgment of the Trial Court. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20523 RFA No. 1190 of 2016 Because of the dismissal of the appeal, interim order if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58