- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 313 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. M.K.V. ENTERPRISES R/BY ITS PROJECT CONSULTANT, #209, HOYSALA NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SITAS C-72, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUST RIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.564/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant in SC No.564/2017 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH – 24). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff is a firm which is involved in Non- Destructive Testing Services Company (hereinafter ‘NDT’ for short) and providing various NDT services for the price through its employees. 3.2. Defendant is a customer of the plaintiff and availed NDT services from the plaintiff. Defendant has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 signed the consent form with the plaintiff in token of availing the NDT services from the plaintiff by accepting the terms and conditions and services of the plaintiff. 3.3. Plaintiff provided the service as desired by the defendant and total bill amount for the services rendered by the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs.42,603/-. 3.4. Despite repeated request, defendant failed to make the payment therefore, plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 06.12.2016. There was no response to the legal notice and therefore, suit came to be filed. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement by contending that the defendant is the manufacturer of Gamma ray and X-ray hubs and blades which is a part used by the Railway Department in the trains and plaintiff is one of the company who tests those parts as they are certified to test the above mentioned parts. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 5. Defendant further contended that they had sent the parts to the plaintiff for visual inspection and not for the NDT services. Therefore, in the absence of the work order, the bill raised by the plaintiff need not be paid by the defendant. 6. After completion of the pleadings, plaintiff in order to prove the suit claim, entered witness box and examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record, 11 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 11 comprising of authorization letter, delivery challan, work reports, test reports, invoice, copy of the notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, reply notice and two e-mail conversations. 7. As against the evidence placed by the plaintiff, one of the persons of the defendant got examined as D.W.1 and copy of the quotation was marked as Ex.D.1 authorization letter as marked as Ex.D.2, copy of the Vat certificate is marked as Ex.D.3 and work order as Ex.D.4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 8. After conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 as under: “14. On perusal, the pleadings of the parties discloses a clear case of business transaction alleged to be taken place between the Plaintiff and Defendant’s Companies with respect to Non Destructive Testing (NDT) services of the hubs and blades which are used in the trains. It is undisputed that Plaintiff firm is a Company undertaking the services of non destructive service for a price for its customers. It is also not disputed that the Defendant is a manufacturer of Gama Ray and X- Ray of hubs and blades which are used in trains by the Railway Department. Plaintiff claiming that Defendant has sent some products to the Plaintiff for non destructive test and the Plaintiff, after carryover the required test raised a bill in a sum of Rs.42,603/- for its services. The delivery challan produced at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 shows that the Defendant Company had delivered 1 hub and 4 blades on 08.03.2016 and another one hub and 15 blades on 12.03.2016 to the Plaintiff Company with a specific description that those are delivered to the Plaintiff for job work and not for sale. After receiving the said products the Plaintiff has carried over the NDT as per Ex.P.4 and prepared the report as per Ex.P.5. Whereas defendant contending now that they have sent the above said products for visual - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 inspection only but they have not given any work order nor allotted the NDT work to the Plaintiff Company. Plaintiff repeatedly and firmly submitting that there is nothing like visual inspection in the field of NDT by receiving the products from its customers. In case if they intend to inspect the products before doing the NDT, they will visit the spot where the products will be kept, but they never ask the customers to send the products for visual inspection that too in case of bulky and heavy materials like the hubs and blades that are mentioned in the Ex.P-2 & P-3. No doubt the Defendant got confronted and marked a quotation through DW-1 at Ex.D-1, to show that the plaintiff company sent a quotation to the defendant company requesting to allot work order to the plaintiff. But the said quotation at Ex.D-1 is bearing a date 10.03.2016 where as the alleged delivery challan as per Ex.P-2 bears the date 08.03.2016 and another delivery challan at Ex.P-3 is dated. 12.03.2016. If at all the plaintiff given a quotation on 10.03.2016 then how the delivery challan dated: 08.03.2016 for having delivered the product for NDT is issued by the defendant is made an unanswered question and the defence of the defendant unbelievable. If it is taken as the delivery challan at Ex.P-2 & 3 are as created by the plaintiff but it is clearly mentioned in the said delivery challans by the authorized signatory for MKV Enterprises, the defendant herein, that the products are sent “for job work and to return and not for sale”. The above said signature shown to be made by authorized signatory of the defendant company on Ex.P-2 & 3 made this court to believe the case of the plaintiff because the own document relied on by the defendant at Ex.D-4 also bears the same signature of the authorized - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 signatory of the defendant company. At the cost of repetition I would like to state that the Ex.P-2 & P- 3, the delivery challans clearly establishes that the defendant company had delivered the blades and hubs to the plaintiff company at its address for job work only and not for alleged visual inspection. 15. It is not out of record to state that the defendant also raised a defense of no authority to PW-1 to represent and depose on behalf of plaintiff before this court. In this respect the defendant also relied on an authority reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2168. But the said defense is not raised by the defendant anywhere in the written statement. As per settled principle of law the defence which is not raised in the pleading cannot be looked into in the later stage either during the trail or the arguments and the said defense cannot be looked into. Therefore in the above stated facts and circumstances I came to conclusion that the Plaintiff has made out a case and proved that the defendant company has allotted the work order to the plaintiff but failed to pay the service charges for the job done by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the case. Hence, I have answered the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.” 9. Correctness and validity of the said order is called in question, in this revision petition on the following grounds: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 It is submitted that the Judgement and decree passed by the Trail Court is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground that Ex.P1 claims to be the authorised letter issued by the Respondent herein dated 22/06/2017 “ to whom so ever it may concern". When the above said Ex.P1 is issued on the above said date, the Respondent herein neither it explained nor it produced along with filing of a suit of the Respondent. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgement & Decree passed by the Trail Court on the said ground by appreciating on the plea of this petitioner in the Trail Court regarding maintainability of the suit, that was not appreciated by the Trail Court by looking into the materials available on record regarding the above plea taken by this petitioner. It is submitted that the PW1 in his Cross Examination categorically admits that he does not have any difficulty to produce the documents regarding its registration of license. When the question was posed to the PW1 in the Cross Examination that whether the documents have been produced in supporting of the para 4 of the plaint with respect to the company terms and conditions for that there is no proper answer but he gave evasive answer that he does not having a memory. It is submitted that the PW1 further categorically admits that in Ex.P2 before mentioning of a date they sent the materials for test to the defendant company i.e., the petitioner company for that he replied that they have sent 4 Blades of 1 Hub for sum of Rs.19,800/- for that also he pleaded the ignorance. It is submitted that regarding the quotation of the price rate which they have shown by accepting the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 proposal if they have given the answer then only they will deliver the materials. Therefore, it is a clean case of creating the bills in the name of this petitioner company only to wrongful gain and loss from the company and to this petitioner company they have filed the false suit against the petitioner. The cardinal principle of law is that the person who approaches/comes to the Hon'ble Courts shall come with clean hands, but the Respondent was not approached to the Trail Court with clean hands. Therefore, the suit filed by the Respondent herein against this petitioner is liable to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity. It is submitted that though the Respondent herein has Cross Examined at length of this petitioner but nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this petitioner witness in the Cross Examination at all. Therefore, the plea taken by this petitioner regarding the cost was on higher side and this petitioner picked up the part back from the Respondent Company. Therefore, the transaction alleged to be has been taken place between the petitioner and the respondent cannot be believable at all even though the Trail Court does not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence including the Cross Examination of the Respondent herein and also the relevant documents have been produced by this Petitioner before the Trail Court were not at all given any judicial treatment by the learned Trail Judge instead of that he shirked away his responsibility and passed the impugned Judgement and Decree, Which is not only contrary to the facts but also even the law. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court kind indulgence is very much required to appreciate facts as well as law in the interest of justice and equity. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 It is submitted that the petitioner though had taken the plea and proved his case by leading oral and documentary evidence in supporting of its contention but the learned Trail Judge failed to appreciate the contention of this petitioner. It is further very relevant to submit that though the learned Trail Judge has came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case but does not appreciate the admission of the PW1 regarding non filing of a authorisation letter while filing a suit itself is not produced is a obstacle/fatal to the main suit itself except authorised for giving evidence to depose before the Hon'ble Trail Court is taken away the rights of the parties was not appreciated. therefore, this Hon'ble Court can set aside the Judgment and Decree and allow the petition of the petitioner and setting aside the Judgment and Decree. Therefore, the non production of the board resolution is a fatal to the main suit itself. Though, this petitioner has produced several authorities by filing a memo but that was not considered by the Hon'ble Trail Court at all. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition of the petitioner and to set-aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the Trail Court in the interest of justice and equity. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the plaintiff has made a false claim inasmuch as the hub and blades were sent to visual inspection and there was no valid work order and even before the confirmation with regard to the work order - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 being finalized, invoice was raised vide Ex.P.6 which shows that the plaintiff is trying to make unlawful gain in the guise of making the inspection of hub and blades and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. None appears for the respondent. 12. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is the specific case of the defendant/revision petitioner that the materials were sent for visual inspection at the request of the plaintiff. No such material is forthcoming on record. 14. On the contrary, D.W.1 categorically admits in his cross-examination that there was a request for issue of work order through e-mail. However, he has maintained that there was no work order issued by the defendant to the plaintiff but the materials were sent for visual - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 inspection. Ex.D.4 makes it clear that there is a work order reference. 15. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that said work order was to be routed through Nag Enterprises and not to the plaintiff. If that is so, nothing prevented the defendant to examine a person from Nag enterprises to show that there was no valid work order issued to the plaintiff. 16. Nevertheless, the documents that are placed on record would not show that the materials were moved by transport only for the visual inspection. 17. Under such circumstances, when the material has reached the plaintiffs concern, through road transport, without there being any proper documentation, cannot be countenanced in law. 18. If at all, the defendant has moved the hub and blade for the purpose of visual inspection alone, necessary documents would have been handed over to the transport - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 authorities with an advance copy to the plaintiff giving necessary particulars as to the materials that has been placed and after inspection, plaintiff should return to the defendant in the same and safe condition. No such details are forthcoming on record. 19. On the contrary, the NDT reports which have been placed on record would go to show that there was a testing that has taken place in the plaintiff’s place for the hub and blade that has been sent to the plaintiff and thereafter, invoice came to be raised vide Ex.P.6. 20. Under such circumstances, plaintiff has established that he is entitled for the services charges vide Ex.P.6 which has been rightly considered by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 21. Having regard to scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 22. Accordingly, following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43712 CRP No. 313 of 2019 ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit shall be sent to the Trial Court and balance amount to be paid within eight weeks from today. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29