- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.582 OF 2018 (SC) BETWEEN: SRI SHAHID SHAFI S/O LATE S M SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 7TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, BDA COMPLEX, HBR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O BHAWARLAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, M/S BHAIRAVA ENTERPRISES, NO.938, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LAXMIKANTHA.K.B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED IN SC No.1251/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT BANGALORE PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 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 Janardhana G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lakshmikanth K.B., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the money decree passed in S.C.No.1251/2015 on the file of I Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH 11), dated 05.09.2018. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount. According to the plaint averments defendant has borrowed following loans: i) On 31.07.2009 has borrowed Rs.22,000/- ii) On 31.07.2009 has borrowed Rs.16,000/- iii) On 24.03.2011 has borrowed Rs.10,000/- iv) On 30.08.2011 has borrowed Rs.19,000/- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 v) On 30.08.2012 has borrowed Rs.19,000/- vi) On 04.12.2012 has borrowed Rs.22,000/- 3.2. The defendant has discharged the first four loans borrowed and yet to discharge sum of Rs.19,000/- borrowed on 30.08.2012 and 22,000/- borrowed on 04.12.2012. 3.3. Thus, suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.22,000/- borrowed by the defendant on 04.12.2012. Necessary documents were also placed along with the plaint. 3.4. Legal notice came to be issued which was not properly complied by the defendant and therefore, suit was filed. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. 5. Defendant contended that he has cleared the entire loan amount borrowed and question of payment of alleged amount of Rs.43,381/- did not arise at all and sought for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 6. Since the plea of discharge was taken by the defendant in the case the recording of evidence should have commenced with the defendant's evidence. 7. However, learned trial Judge allowed the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Therefore, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 22 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.22, comprising of loan application, terms and conditions of loan, demand promissory notice, consideration receipt, sale receipt, clearance certificate, transfer of insurance, authorization letter, deliver note, Form No.29, Form No.30, Insurance policy, receipt issued by defendant, Form No.6, carbon copy of monthly statement, list of documents, loan account extract, cheque bearing No.203692 dated 20.10.2015 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, cheque return memo and business licence. 8. Defendant did not choose to lead any evidence nor elicited any plausible materials so as to prove his case. However, during the cross examination of P.W.1, he confronted two documents which were admitted by P.W.1 and therefore, they were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 9. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.287/2013 so also Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the decree in OS No.287/2013. 10. Learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, decreed the suit. 11. Operative portion of the decree of the trial Court reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,381/- to the plaintiff with future interest rate 14% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. If the defendant failed to clear the entire out standings within two months from today, plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same by due process of law.” 12. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 13. Sri G. Janardhana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 vehemently contented that trial Court failed to note that the plaintiff having lent the loan only with regard to the sum of Rs.22,000/- said to have been borrowed by the defendant on 04.12.2012. 14. The judgment and decree that has been passed in the other suit filed by the plaintiff marked at Exs.D1 and Ex.D2 is not taken note of by the learned trial Judge while appreciating the defence resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the trial Court granting the liquidated damages and awarding the penal interest is against the settled principles of law and sought for allowing the revision petition at least by modifying the decree and sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. Per contra, Sri Laxmikantha K.B., learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material loan record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 18. On such perusal of the material on record it is crystal clear that borrowing of the loan is established by the contents of the written statement. 19. Defendant has taken a plea of discharge. In such cases, it is defendant, who is required to step into the witness box and prove the plea of discharge. 20. Defendant having failed to enter the witness box and marking Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, tried to discharge his responsibility in proving the case of the defendant. 21. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are no doubt the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.287/2013 as referred to supra. 22. By mere admitting the certified copy of the judgment and decree by the defendant in the cross examination of plaintiff, plea of the discharge would not get established automatically. 23. The second ground on which the revision petitioner is seeking to interfere with the decree of the trial Court is that the plaintiff has cumulatively added the interest till filing of the suit, as such suit claim is exhorbitant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 24. It is for the defendant to establish that how it is wrong by placing the necessary evidence on record especially when he has taken the plea of discharge. When he discharged the loan amount is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the defendant. 25. Suit claim thus, cannot be faulted with, if the trial Court has granted compound interest in the operative portion of the decree, then this Court had ample power to interfere with the said order. 26. But, till the date of filing of the suit, it is the plaintiff who is the master of the suit and therefore, claiming of the interest in the plaint cannot be faulted with. 27. Operative portion of the decree referred to supra does not contain that the learned trial Judge has ordered compound interest on the principal sum. On the contrary, he has ordered only 14% p.a., interest on the suit claim, which is perfectly justifiable. 28. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the decree of the trial Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42103 CRP No. 582 of 2018 29. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR