- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2014 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. M/S MANIPAL MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED, SYNDICATE HOUSE, MANIPAL 576 104 REP. BY P. VAMAN MAIYA GENERAL MANAGER, G.P.A 2. M/S MANIPAL MEDIA NETWORK LIMITTED, UDAYAVANI BUILDING, MANIPAL 576 104, KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS C.F.O., SRI BHARAT K. NAYAK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S ABHIMAANI PRAKASHANA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 NO.2/4, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010. REP. BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI SRINIVAS V., DIRECTOR. 2. SRI R. RAMAMURTHY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.MANIPAL MEDIA NETWORK LIMITTED, MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 22.04.2014 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4033/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 32), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Mr. Ajith A. Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. C. Vijayakumar for the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.4033/2011 instituted by the plaintiff/respondent for seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.43,77,702.24/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum. 3. The plaintiff is a printing and publishing house. The plaintiff/respondent had been carrying out many publication works on behalf of the State and Central Government and also engaged in publishing National and International books. The plaintiff is a reputed publishing house. The appellants/defendants i.e., Manipal Media Network Limited, Udayavani Building, Manipal, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for carrying out the printing work of newspaper on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 22.05.2003 (Ex.P50). The initial agreement came to an end on 21.05.2006. 4. It is not in dispute that even after coming to an end of the initial period of contract, the plaintiff/respondent carried out the publication work of the appellants/defendants till 03.09.2009. The plaintiff/respondent vide Communication dated 29.07.2008 (Ex.P10) mentioned the revised rate for publishing the newspaper "Udayavani" of the appellants/defendants. This letter was never denied by the appellants/defendants and in fact, DW.1 admitted in his evidence that as per Exs.P9 and P10, the plaintiff/respondent had informed the defendants regarding revised prices of the printing. There is nothing on record and no evidence was led on behalf of the defendants denying the revised rates intimated by the plaintiff/respondent. In fact, this would amount to acceptance of the revised rate for printing Udayavani newspaper by the plaintiff/respondent. When the defendants did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs.24,40,798/-, a letter was issued on 01.12.2009 to the defendants demanding said amount at Ex.D10. Finally, the notice was issued on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 26.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.35,30,405.24/- as per Exs.P39 and P40. As the defendants/appellants failed to pay the said amount along with interest, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming decree for recovery of Rs.43,77,702.24/- (principal amount of Rs.35,30,405.24/- and interest of Rs.8,47,297/-) along with interest at 12% per annum on the outstanding amount. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: "ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff firm proves that the defendant No.1 has entered into contract with the plaintiff firm for the purpose of carrying out various publications on behalf of the defendants and for the publication carried out of all the printing work on behalf of the defendants, the defendants were due the suit claim amount of Rs.43,77,702.24/- as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled for interest as claimed? 3. Whether the defendants prove that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff firm and the defendants and they had not agreed to the rates quoted by the plaintiff firm and the plaintiff firm has claimed enhanced and inflated bills? 4. Whether the defendants further prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try t any time the plaintiff's suit.? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 5. What decree or order?" 5. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence in detail and holding that the revised rate intimated by the plaintiff/respondent vide Communications in Exs.P9 and P10 were never disputed and in fact, the defendants' works were carried out by the plaintiff/respondent. The Trial Court did not accept the contention of the defendants that there was no revision of the rates for publication of the newspaper "Udayavani" and held that the outstanding amount of Rs.35,30,405.24/- has been proved by the plaintiff/respondent by leading evidence as well as ledger entry in their books of accounts-Exs.P2 to P7. Thus, the learned Trial Court allowed the Suit and granted a decree for a sum of Rs.43,77,702.24/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.35,30,405.24/- from the date of filing of the suit till the entire realization. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submitted that there was no novation of contract and the revised rates were not agreed to between the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 7. We do not find that such contention has any merit in as much as the plaintiff witnesses tendered the documents- Exs.P9 and P10, wherein the revised rates were intimated to the defendants and the defendants' witness-DW.1 admitted receipt of those letters and thereafter, also the publication work of "Udayavani" continued. When the defendants never denied the receipt of the letter for revising the rate in Exs.P9 and P10 and the defendants' witness-DW.1 admitted the said letters and thereafter the publication work continued, we are of the view that the plaintiff/respondent has proved their case that the parties had agreed for revision of the rates and on that basis, they continued to publish the newspaper of the defendants/appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants further submitted that there was no pleading for novation of contract. 9. We must hold that there was a pleading that an amount of Rs.43,77,702.24/- was due and payable by the defendants for carrying out the publication work of newspaper of defendants "Udayavani", and the parties had agreed for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 revised rate for publication in as much as the plaintiffs had addressed letters to full address in Exs.P9 and P10 intimating the defendants for revised rates for publication which were never denied. The details of invoices have also been furnished for carrying out the publication of the newspaper in invoices Exs.P11 to P38 which were never denied by the defendants. Therefore, we are of the view that there was sufficient pleading by the plaintiff in respect of its claim of Rs.43,77,702.24/-. Even otherwise, if the plaintiff would have only said that the plaintiff was entitled for a sum of Rs.43,77,702.24/- for the work of publication of newspaper "Udayavani' of the defendants, this pleading itself would have been sufficient to put up the case of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was to be proved by leading the evidence which the plaintiff has successfully proved. 10. The third submission advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is that there are multiplication of same entries. However, we have perused Exs.P2 to P7 and we have not found any such repeated entries - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41517-DB RFA No. 288 of 2014 as alleged by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and the evidence of the parties, documentary as well as the oral, we do not find that the Trial Court has committed any error. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4