- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2022 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 055 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN RAJ S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DR. GIRIDHARA REDDY P S/O LATE P. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, EX - PRINCIPAL VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY R/O NO.203, SMR HIRETAGE, 3RD CROSS, TMN STREET, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR T.M., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.No.8627/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.8627/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022 passed by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for recovery of money was partly decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of money. The appellant-defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to encash the earned leave of 48 days? (ii) Whether defendant institution proves that, plaintiff was paid consolidated remuneration including all fringe benefits? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount? (iv) What order or decree? 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P5. However, the appellant- defendant cross-examined PW-1 but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. Considering the same, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant – defendant, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of the respondent - plaintiff was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 and decree and matter be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, it is contented by the respondent that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? 8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has taken into account the fact that the evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant - defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 inability and omission to adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant - defendant, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.8627/2018 by the trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant-defendant is directed to cross-examine PW-1 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. (v) Parties are to appear before the trial Court on 17.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47270 RFA No. 700 of 2022 (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (viii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from today. (ix) The amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the trial Court, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. (x) The appellant - defendant shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent - plaintiff before the trial court on the date of appearance i.e., on 17.12.2025. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT-SG