- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 235 OF 2020 (SC) BETWEEN: M/S B.R. ELECTRONICS AND HOME APPLIANCES, CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, IGGALUR, BENGALURU - 560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. SRI. BALRAJU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA H.C, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MAHESH CHANNEL PARTNERS LLP, NO.142, 1ST FLOOR, CKC GARDEN, M. CHINNIAH LANE, LALBAGH ROD, NALLA CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI. TAPPAN …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.15115/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 ACMM (SCCH.20) MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. 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 Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has served with the notice of revision petition and has remained absent. The defendant in SC.No.15115/2019 on the file of Vth Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M. (SCCH-20), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed in the said suit whereby the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed in a sum of ₹2,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit, till its realization. 2. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 A suit for recovery of sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that the plaintiff is a wholesale dealer in home appliances and electronic goods. 3. It is further contended that the defendant, being the retail businessman, purchased the goods from the plaintiff on credit from the period 17.08.2016 to 24.04.2018 and he is due in a sum of ₹2,07,211/- towards the principal amount. 4. The transactions are based on the invoices as referred to under: 1. Invoide No.P.G./0371 : 30/05/2017 : Rs.217851.00 2. Invoide No.P.G./0459 : 08/06/2016 : Rs. 15147.00 3. Invoide No.P.G./0460 : 08/06/2017 : Rs. 35696.00 4. Invoide No.P.G./0508 : 08/06/2017 : Rs. 7062.00 5. The defendant failed to pay the invoice amounts within a period of 30 days as agreed and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice. Defendant, even after receipt of the legal notice, failed to comply with the callings of the notice nor reply. Therefore, a suit for recovery of ₹2,56,343/- came to be filed, which is split up as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 1. Towards Principle : Rs. 2,07,211.00 2. Towards Interest from : Rs. 49,132.00 30/06/2017 to 27.02.2019 24% 3. Notice charges : Rs. 1,500.00 ____________ Total : Rs.2,56,343.00 ____________ 6. The defendant appeared pursuant to the suit summons, appeared before the court and filed written statement containing that he has paid ₹3,16,807/- in respect of the transactions he has made. But in respect of two transactions, he has paid in cash, which has not been accounted for by the plaintiff and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The payment made by the defendant are tabulated as under: Invoice No. Dated Amount a) PG 0370 30/05/2017 41,051/- b) PG 00371 30/05/2017 2,17,851/- c) PG 0459 08/06/2017 15,147/- d) PG 0460 08/06/2017 35,696/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 e) PG 0508 08/06/2017 7,062/- Total 3,16,807/- 8. In order to establish the case, the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness by name Kumar has been examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff placed on record 11 documents, which were exhibited as Ex.P.1 to P.11 comprising a certified copy of the Power of Attorney, tax invoices, account statement, legal notice and Xerox copy of DL. 9. As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record five invoice bills, which were marked as Ex.D1 to D5. 10. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The same is called in question in this revision petition by the defendant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that in respect of two cash payments of ₹1,00,000 each, there is no receipt, but the representative of the plaintiff’s company has made an endorsement in the invoice and therefore, the suit is to be dismissed by allowing the revision petition. 12. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, whenever a plea of discharge is taken by a particular defendant in a given suit, the said defence has to be established by the defendant by placing cogent evidence on record. 14. In the case on record, according to the defendant, the evidence that is placed on record is the signature of the representative of the plaintiff on the invoice. Who is the representative who has made such a signature on the invoice and whether it could be a proper discharge of the amount covered under the invoice is a question that has to be proved - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44392 CRP No. 235 of 2020 by the defendant by summoning such representative of the plaintiff. 15. No such details are forthcoming nor at least the name of the representative of the plaintiff is spelled out by D.W.1 in his examination-in-chief. According to the defendant, it was P.W.2 put his signature on the invoice. When the invoice was confronted to P.W.2, he denied his signature on the invoice. Under such circumstances, plea of discharge has not been established by the defendant and the decreeing of the suit by the plaintiff is just and proper. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in any one of the grounds urged in the revision petition. 17. Hence, following: ORDER The revision petition is merit less and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22