- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1582 OF 2025 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. RAVI NIKHARA FINANCE CORPORATION ® REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI KODANDARAM .P S/O S.A. PILLAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.27, 10TH MAIN, SRINAGAR BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560050. 2. SRI P. KODANDARAM S/O S.A. PILLAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY RAVI NIKHARA FINANCE CORPORATION ® NO.27, 10TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560050. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI H.S. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI H.K. SURYA PRAKASH S/O LATE H. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.224/1, NEMMADHI NILAYA, NEAR ALLWIN BAKERY, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560072. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7441/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2022 in O.S. No.7441/2019 on the file of the X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of money and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum for a period of 3 years from 22.02.2014 to 22.02.2017 as future interest at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit till the date of actual realization of the amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the principal amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and the agreed interest @ 15% per annum for 3 years amounts to Rs.45,000/- making it Rs.1,45,000/-. The Trial Court has erroneously imposed interest again on this amount, thereby granting interest on interest, which is legally unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel submits that the appellants paid Rs.1,99,000/- to the respondent on various dates before the institution of the suit on 07.10.2017, 17.10.2017, 24.10.2017, 02.11.2017, 16.11.2017, 24.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 26.07.2018, 27.08.2018 and 02.01.2019. The respondent, however has not disclosed these payments and made a false claim. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that the principal with agreed interest - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 amounts to Rs.1,45,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.45,000/-). The Trial Court erred in directing interest again on this already calculated amount. The respondent admits receipt of Rs.10,000/- on 27.08.2018. Other payments are disputed since no documents were produced before the Trial Court, nor was such a plea raised in the written statement. Learned counsel submits that the balance of Rs.1,35,000/- carries interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of suit, i.e., 16.10.2019 till realization. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arise for consideration by this Court is as follows: “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?” 7. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2014, the defendants advertised for investment in their company offering that they would pay 15% per annum interest on the investment and on the said advertisement, the plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 22.04.2014 for a period of 3 years till 22.02.2017 with defendants and defendant No.2 executed on demand pronote and receipt in that regard which is dated 22.02.2014. It is stated that after completion of 3 years that is after the maturity of the said amount, the plaintiff approached defendant No.2 seeking to repay the said amount. 8. The repayment of the amount being not made, having assured that they would pay the amount with interest within 15 days and transferred an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff’s account on 27.08.2018. The defendants having not repaid the remaining amount, the plaintiff issued legal notice calling upon the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,650/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money. 9. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 the other hand, the authorized representative of the defendant was examined as DW.1. No documents were marked on their behalf. 10. The trial Court, upon considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that Ex.P6, the receipt goes to show that on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- the interest at the rate of 15% per annum for a period of three years would come to Rs.45,000/- and thus the total amount due from defendants after three years as on 22.02.2017 was Rs.1,45,000/-. However, in its operative portion, the Trial Court directed interest again on the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- for the same period, effectively awarding double interest, which is an error. 11. As regards the appellants’ claim of payments totaling to Rs.1,99,000/-, there is no pleading or corroborative evidence to substantiate this contention. The appellants filed I.A.No.2/2025 seeking to produce - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 additional documents, namely Axis Bank statements reflecting payments allegedly made to the respondent on 07.10.2017, 17.10.2017, 24.10.2017, 02.11.2017, 16.11.2017, 24.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 26.07.2018, 27.08.2018 and 02.01.2019. It is stated that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, these documents could not be traced and produced before the Trial Court. It is further averred that in execution proceedings, the appellants claimed to have paid a balance of Rs.1,00,000/- and sought adjustment, but the executing Court rejected such calculation and directed payment of Rs.2,50,820/-. According to the appellants, they have already paid an excess of Rs.1,54,000/-. 12. The respondent opposes the application, contending that the bank statement produced pertains to ‘Nikhara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited’ a different entity, not the appellant ‘Ravi Nikhara Finance Corporation.’ The application is filed belatedly, two years eight months after the decree, and after initiation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 execution proceedings. No such plea was raised in the written statement before the trial Court, and the appellants cannot be permitted to set up a new defence at the appellate stage. The present attempt is only to protract litigation and deprive the decree holder of legitimate dues. 13. Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible only if: i. The trial Court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. ii. The evidence was not within the knowledge, or could not be produced despite due diligence. iii. The appellate Court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment effectively. 14. The appellants’ written statement is silent about the alleged payments. If such payments were in fact made, nothing prevented the appellants from pleading and producing the supporting bank statements before the trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 Court. The plea that documents could not be traced due to the pandemic is not convincing, since the alleged payments are of 2011 to 2019, much prior to COVID-19. The Axis Bank statements now filed pertains to another entity (Nikhara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited), which is not the appellant herein. This by itself undermines the relevance and admissibility of the documents. The appellants seek to use this application to fill the lacuna in their defence and to reopen the issues already concluded, which is impermissible in law. Thus, this Court does not require these documents to pronounce the judgment effectively since the liability is already crystallized by Ex.P.6, and the admitted amount of Rs.10,000/-. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the proposed documents fall within the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The appellants’ application appears to be after thought filed belatedly after the decree during execution, only to resist enforcement, I.A No.2/2025 is to be rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33250 RFA No. 1582 of 2025 15. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and decree dated 25.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.7441/2019 on the file of the X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is modified to the extent that the defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.1,45,000/- - Rs.10,000/-) with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit till the date of actual realization. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA RHS, AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12