- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.124 OF 2022 (SC) BETWEEN: SRI SURESH P S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.46/B, 5TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, BAPUJI NAGAR MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE -560 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARIPRASAD.M.B FOR SMT.NANDINI.B.S, ADVOCATES) AND: QUICKMIX CONCRETE A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY NR. MOHINDER MITTAL AS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR HAVING OFFICE AT NO.29B GROUND FLOOR PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE -560070 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. NARASIMHA MURTHY B …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANANDITA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2020 PASSED IN SC.No.1490/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. SMALL Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DIRECTION TO THE DEFENDANT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1,56,000/-. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Hariprasad M.B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nandini B.S., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C.No.1490/2019 is the revision petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.06.2020 passed in the said suit, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part in a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. 3. Facts of the case which are of the utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. Suit in the trial Court was filed as a summary suit as is contemplated under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure based on written contract in the form of invoice. 4. Special summons were taken out as is contemplated under Form 4 of the Appendix - B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 5. After service of notice and appearance of the defendant before the trial Court, summons for judgment under Form 4A of Appendix-B along with affidavit came to be filed by the plaintiff. 6. Defendant did not choose to file application seeking leave to defend as is contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure within 10 days from the date of service of summons in Form No. 4A of Appendix-B along with affidavit. 7. Therefore, learned trial Judge proceeded with the matter and decreed suit of the plaintiff in part. 8. The correctness of the same is assailed in this petition on the following grounds:  The Impugned Judgment and Decree of the trial court is in violation of Principles of natural justice and the same is no nest in the eye of law.  The trial court went in error in passing the Impugned Judgment and Decree without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner/Defendant to defnd his case. The Trial Court also erred in not recording the evidence of the parties. The Petitioner is having valuable points to put on Respondent in cross examination in proving that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 suit of the Respondent is bad in law and not maintainable.  The Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that there is no cause of action to file the suit in view of the Petitioner has made the payment to the Respondent and nothing as due to the Respondent. As such the decreetal of the suit is bad in law.  The Petitioner submits that the transaction is no way connected with the Respondent.  The Petitioner submits that he was due for a sum of Rs.5,200/- as balance amount and as such a blank cheque was received by the Respondent from the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent has received Rs.5,200/- by cash from the Petitioner and the above said cheque will be returned later, but the Respondent has not returned the said cheque and presented the cheque to the Bank by entering date as 07-11-2016 by entering as Rs.52,000/- and it was not honoured by taking advantage that the Petitioner does not know writing and speaking English. After lapse of three years the Respondent filed S.C.1490/2019 as time barred and invoking wrong jurisdiction and wrong provision.  The Trial Court has erred in dismissing the L.A. filed under Section 37(3)(5) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Hon'ble Court to file his Written statement as triable issues are involved in the case. After the dismissal of the said application the Trial Court erred in proceeded further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 without evidence of the parties in the case as the Petitioner is having a good defence in the case.  The Trial Court failed to notice the contradictory version of the Respondent that in the notice and the plaint.  The impugned judgment and decree is bad in law on the ground that the Trial Court failed to give any opportunity for cross examining the Respondent to elecitate the actual aspects of the transaction. The Petitioner submits that he has paid entire amount and there was no balance amount to pay to the Respondent.  The Impugned Judgment and Decree is even otherwise highly illegal for the reason that the Petitioner is not given full opportunity to prove his case.  Even otherwise the Impugned Judgment and Decree is illegal, perverse, unjust and opposed to the well settled Principles of law.” 9. Sri Hariprasad M.B., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contented that non allowing the application for leave to defend has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice besides being the violation of the principles of fair trial and thus sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 10. He would also contend that there is serious lacuna in the case of the plaintiff including the question of limitation and the same is to be considered by this court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, since there was no application filed by the defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure within 10 days from the date of service of summons under Form 4A of Appendix-B along with affidavit, there was no option for the Court except to decree the suit as prayed for. 14. Further, the trial Court has taken pains to discuss the merits of the matter by assigning proper reasons to decree the suit in part. 15. Defendant having failed to defend the suit by filing necessary application, cannot now contend that the decreeing of the suit has resulted in miscarriage of justice. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45888 CRP No. 124 of 2022 16. Accordingly the grounds urged in the revision petition cannot be countenanced in law any longer. 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR