- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 431 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. M/S BOMBAY TEXTILES BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. PUTHIYADUTH NOUSHAD, S/O. FAREED, AGED 35 YEARS, NO.38/2, BAZAAR STREET, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMI G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S TEJESWINI FABRICS BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. P. PUTTARAJU, S/O. LATE P. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, 28TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT 1964 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.15357/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM (SCCH.20) MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE SUIT 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 1. Heard Smt. Lakshmi G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Yashwanth for Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C. No.15357/2018 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. 3. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under; "The suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed, with cost. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- to the plaintiff, together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of the suit, till its' realization." 4. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1 Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the money in respect of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Due amount in various invoices bearing No.1251, 1279, 1298 and 1376 dated 20.03.2018, 18.04.2018, 16.05.2018, 29.08.2018 in a sum of Rs.93,979/- and Rs.13,167/- Rs.29,939/- and Rs.47,898/- respectively are the basis for filing the suit. 4.2 It is contended that defendant issued a Cheque bearing No.330065 dated 05.09.2018 in a sum of Rs.33,949/- towards the part payment of the amount covered under the under the aforesaid invoices. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 4.3 The plaintiff presented the said Cheque for encashment, but the Cheque got dishonored with an endorsement 'insufficient'. Later on the civil suit came to be filed. 4.4 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. 4.5 It is contented that initially the plaintiff had agreed to supply the cloth material at the rate of Rs.45/- per meter and at the time of delivering the cloth materials, an exorbitant bill came to be rised and therefore defendant is not liable to pay the amount covered under the invoices. 4.6 Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the parties were directed to place necessary evidence on record on behalf of the plaintiff. 4.7 On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined as PW1 and placed on record as many as nine documents comprising of tax invoices, computer account ledger - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 extract, cheque, postal memo, legal notice and postal acknowledgment. 4.8 As against the evidence placed on record, proprietor of the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record ten documents namely cheque book counter foils, bank statements, credit note, Tax invoices, Cheque and Tax invoice. 4.9 Learned Trial Judge thereafter heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has preferred this revision petition on the following grounds. :  The Lower Court ought to have considered the both orals and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner as Ex.D.1 to D10 to prove the dues of the Respondent, the lower court was failed to consider the above case and it is liable to be set aside the order passed by the court.  The Lower court erred in failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under law acted in excess of its jurisdiction and materially irregularities and therefore the judgement and decree is vitiated under law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019  The Lower court have considered the above case only on the basis of assumption and presumption without considering the any documentary as well as oral evidence and delivery challan is absence in the case.  The Judgement and decree of the court below is contrary law and opposed to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case.  The court below was consider the evidence lead by the respondent by suppressing all the admitted material facts therefore judgement and decree is liable to be set aside.  The Court below was considered the created xerox documents produced by the respondent absences, admitted and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P9 absence of delivery challan is liable to be quashed and set aside.  The Judgement and Decree of the Court below passed the Court in SCCH.20 is erroneous, unjust and opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case and against the law.  The lower court erred in passed the Judgement and decree allowed the suit by the contested amount with interest costs only by production of the created xerox copies and false evidence lead by the respondent by suppressing all the material facts is opposed to the law and facts at any costs. The order is liable to be set aside.  The Lower Court was failed to consider that the respondent delivered the damaged sarees to the petitioner and the business was started from February and he initiated the false claims suits against the petitioner in the month of December and without producing any delivery challans stating that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 he was delivered the materials and admitting the tax invoices.  The Court failed to consider that the respondent was delivered only damaged sarees without checking to the petitioner and it is his duty to replace it because he was a wholesaler and before the sarees was sending to polishing they were using some chemicals if the chemicals drops on the sarees it will became damage and the burden was shifting to the petitioner and this aspect was failed considered by the lower court and passed the judgement and decree is liable to be set aside.  That the C.R.P. is filed within 60 days  That the petitioner submits that there is no other alternative remedy to initiate proceedings, and there is no any suits or appeal or other proceedings pending either before the trial court or any other court before the Hon'ble High court in respect of the same matter against the respondent. 6. Smt. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the Trial Court did not consider the probative value of Exhibits D1 to D10 in its proper perspective and failed to note that the agreed amount has already been paid by the defendant, but there was an escalated amount in the invoices for which the defendant was not liable to pay. Therefore decreeing of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 the suit of the plaintiff has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri. Yashwanth, learned counsel for the respondent representing Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, transaction between plaintiff and defendant is not in dispute. All that the defendant contending is that the plaintiff had agreed to supply the cloth material at the rate of Rs.45/- per meter but the invoice amount exceeded the supply of the goods at the rate of Rs.45/-. Therefore defendant is not liable to pay the said amount. 10. Such a contention was not proved by the defendant by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 11. Admittedly, the Cheque issued by the defendant got dishonored and the amount covered under the invoices were not paid. Therefore, the decreeing of the suit by the trial Court is just and proper in the absence of rebuttal evidence placed by defendant as plaintiff has discharged initial burden to raise presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. However, on the question of interest is concerned, the Cheque would carry interest at 18% as per Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But so far as the 24% interest on the invoices is not proved by the plaintiff. 13. Hence, the decree needs to be modified to that extent. 14. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the decree of the suit in a sum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51528 CRP No. 431 of 2019 Rs.1,02,000/-, the said sum shall be paid with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till its' realization. (ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff under due identification. (iii) Balance amount to be paid within four weeks from today. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34