- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 39 OF 2020 (SC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. KUMAR DHARMAPPA S/O HOTTINA DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, JCB BUSINESS AND REAL ESTATE, R/OF H.H.ROAD, NEAR KADAMBA HOTEL, AYANUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 211 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. R. SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE RAJA KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHILPI BY OCCUPATION, R/O KUMBARAGUNDI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.9/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT SHIVAMOGGA DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 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.Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat M., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in SC No.9/2018 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 09.09.2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 3. Operative portion of the order of the Trial Court reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,695/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4.1. Plaintiff contended that for the legal necessity, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the plaintiff in the last week of May, 2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% within a year. 4.2. Plaintiff advanced the entire loan amount to the defendant in cash and subsequently after receipt of the loan amount, defendant failed to repay the same and issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.53,000/- towards the repayment bearing No.802669 dated 28.05.2016. 4.3. Said cheque on presentation returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 31.05.2016. Hence plaintiff personally approached the defendant to repay the same but plaintiff failed to do so. Thereafter, a notice came to be issued. The notice was duly replied but there was no compliance to the callings of the notice resulting in the plaintiff filing the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed written statement by contending that entire amount covered under the cheque has been repaid. Therefore, the suit is a speculative suit. 6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, Trial Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiff, wherein he got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record four documents comprising of dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice and postal receipt. 7. As against the same, defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and Sri.Manjunath as D.W.2 on his behalf. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.15 to 19 as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 “15. DW1 has categorically deposed that in the month of March 2015 he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff, by agreeing to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 3% per month and subsequently on 28.05.2015 he repaid the entire loan amount to this plaintiff in a cash. He deposed that as he has not received the amount to his bank amount, his cheque was not honoured on his presentation for encashment. He has categorically deposed that in the month of June 2015 he after taking loan from his friends Manjunatha and D.T.Krishna Murthy from each Rs.25,000/- he repaid the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to this plaintiff and as he failed to pay the interest amount of Rs.3,000/-, the plaintiff has refused to return his cheque and demanded interest of Rs.3,000/- to return the cheque. He deposed that in the last week of June 2015 he repaid the interest amount of Rs.3,000/- to this plaintiff and this plaintiff even after receipt of the entire cheque amount of Rs.53,000/- has failed to return his cheque by stating that the cheque is with his advocate and he will return the same after collecting from his advocate and he by believing the words of the plaintiff, did not insisted to return the cheque. He deposed that the plaintiff even after receipt of the entire loan amount along with interest thereon instead of returning his cheque, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 misused his cheque and filed this false suit, even though he has not borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from this plaintiff. He deposed that he has already repaid the entire loan amount with interest thereon, he is not liable to pay the suit claim amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff extensively cross examined the DW1 by denying his testimony. DW1 categorically admitted that he has borrowed loan from this plaintiff and even admitted the fact that he had issued Ex.P1 cheque toward repayment of the said loan amount and his cheque was bounced on its presentation for encashment. He admitted the suggestion that subsequently after dishonor of the cheque, the plaintiff personally approached him to repay the loan amount therein and subsequently he had issued Ex.P3 notice. He further admitted the suggestion that he personally received the notice as per Ex.P3 and after receipt of the legal notice he has neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor he has replied to the notice. No doubt, DW1 has stated that he was already repaid the entire loan amount along with interest therein, he has not issued the reply notice to the plaintiff. However, except adducing oral evidence that he had borrowed a sum of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 Rs.50,000/- from this plaintiff, by agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest at 3% per month and he has already repaid the said loan amount along with interest thereon, has not chosen to adduce any documentary evidence before this court. 17. No doubt, the defendant examined his friend Manjunatha as DW2 and even DW2 in his affidavit has deposed that the defendant had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from this plaintiff and towards repayment of the said loan amount along with interest he had given his cheque for a sum of Rs.53,000/- to the plaintiff and later thereon the defendant after collecting loan from him along with one T.D.Krishnamurthy from each Rs.25,000/- returned the said loan amount to this plaintiff. He deposed that on the request of the defendant he had advanced a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the defendant to return the said amount to this plaintiff. However, DW2 in his cross examination admitted that he has no document with him to prove that he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the defendant to return the said amount to this plaintiff. However, DW2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has no document with him to prove that he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the defendant on his request and this defendant after collecting a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him and also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 Rs.25,000/- from Krishnamurthy, repaid the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to this plaintiff. Admittedly, DW1 has neither collected any receipt for having repaid the entire loan amount to this plaintiff along with interest thereon from this plaintiff nor he has maintained any accounts for having repaid the loan amount. The defendant except adducing the oral evidence that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from this plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said loan amount along with interest at 3% per month and subsequently after he borrowed the loan, repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.53,000/- towards the plaintiff and even after receipt of the entire loan amount along with interest thereon, the plaintiff has failed to return his cheque and misused his cheque and filed a false suit, has not chosen to prove the same by adducing convincing and documentary evidence before this court. There is nothing on record to believe the defence of DW1 that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff in the month of May 2015 and towards the security of the said loan amount, he had given Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.53,000/-. 18. On the contrary, the plaintiff by adducing Ex.P1 cheque proved that the defendant after receipt of loan amount of Rs.45,000/- after adding interest to the loan amount, in order to repay the loan amount of Rs.53,000/- issued his Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 was bounced for encashment, the plaintiff by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court proved that the defendant after receipt of the legal notice issued as per Ex.P3, has neither make payment of the cheque amount nor he has replied the notice by denying the transaction. 19. 19. The oral and documentary evidence adduced before the plaintiff is fully corroborating with each other and clearly proves the loan transaction and also proves that the defendant in order to repay the loan amount along with interest thereon, had issued Ex.P1 cheque and his cheque was bounced on his presentation and later he failed to repay the cheque amount even after receipt of legal notice. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and to discard the evidence of PW1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim along with interest thereon. However, since the loan is for the purpose of family and legal necessity, it is just and proper to impose the interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of this order till its realization. As such, in view of the above observation, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Hence, I answer point No.1 & 2 are in the affirmative.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the Trial court did not properly appreciate the oral evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 in proving the case of the defendant that he had already repaid the cheque amount and therefore, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revisional grounds and supports the impugned judgment. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, in the case on hand, there is no dispute as to the loan transaction in view of the fact that defendant has taken the plea of discharge. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 14. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the plea of discharge is to be proved by the defendant. To prove the plea of discharge, defendant got examined himself and one witness by name Sri.Manjunath. 15. Learned Trial Judge took into consideration the oral testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and did not believe the plea of discharge. 16. Further, no prudent person would pay the amount without taking the receipt nor keep quite if there is a double claim after receipt of the money. 17. Further, in the reply, the plea of discharge is not taken. Reply notice is also not marked on behalf of the defendant. 18. All these aspects of the matter would make it clear that the defendant somehow wanted to avoid the suit claim and has made a false claim. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45388 CRP No. 39 of 2020 19. Thus, in the absence of proper proof as to the discharge of loan amount, decreeing the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference by this Court in this revision. 20. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33