- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2025 (MON) BETWEEN: SMT. INDIRA W/O SRI. R.N. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT "SRI. ELURAMMA, DEVI KRUPE" NO.111, RAMANAHALLI (HOSAHALLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MAHESH M R S/O M.G. RACHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. OPP: SRI. BASAVESWARA, SWAMY TEMPLE, HANIYAMBADI ROAD HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A V., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.105/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'the CPC') by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.105/2019 dated 01.03.2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.21,82,367/- on the ground that the appellant received Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondent on 31.10.2016 and agreed to return the same along with 12% interest per annum. It is averred that the appellant executed a pro-note as a security towards the loan and despite repeated requests, she could not repay the amount. It is further averred that the appellant issued a Cheque dated 04.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.21,44,000/- towards the discharge of the loan amount which came to be returned as 'funds insufficient' from the bank account of the appellant. It is also averred that the respondent got issued a legal notice to the appellant and despite service of notice, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 loan amount was not repaid. Hence, filed a suit for recovery of money. 3. The appellant entered appearance before the Trial Court but did not file a written statement. The Trail Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The respondent examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8(d). The Trial Court, on appreciation of the submissions and evidence on record decreed the suit with costs against the appellant by ordering the respondent to recover Rs.21,82,367/- with current and future interest @ 12% per annum from the appellant/defendant. Being aggrieved, this appeal. 4. Smt.Anusha Nandish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1479 days in filing the appeal as there were negotiations between the parties to resolve the dispute amicably and hence, could not file a written statement. It is the specific case of the appellant that she did not file a police complaint, as agreed in the Panchayath, since the claim of the respondent is false and on the assurance that the suit would be withdrawn. However, to her surprise, the suit continued and was decreed. It is submitted that the appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 filed miscellaneous petition seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is provided to the appellant by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court to reconsider the suit on merits, after providing an opportunity to file a written statement and contest the suit, justice would be served. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to deposit reasonable amount to show her bona fides so that the Trial Court can consider the suit on merits after recording her evidence. It is contended that the burden of proving legal liability has not been properly discharged by the respondent; however, the Trial Court erroneously decreed the suit. The Trial Court failed to take note of the pleading and evidence and accepted the version of the respondent as the gospel truth, and decreed the suit. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court. 5. Sri.Sampath Kumar A.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court and submits that despite providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant, she did not file a written - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 statement. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court to prove the debt which is a legally enforceable debt and on appreciation; the Trial Court decreed the suit. It is further submitted that if the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, it must be on specific terms of deposit of decreetal amount by the appellant before the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for any interference?" 8. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the respondent filed a money recovery suit against the appellant for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- on the ground that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 appellant had borrowed a sundry loan to meet her family necessities and on demand, she refused to repay the loan. It is contended that on 31.10.2016, the appellant executed a pro- note as a security to the loan and despite repeated requests to repay the amount, the appellant failed to pay the same. It is further contended that on persistent demand, the appellant issued a Cheque dated 04.09.2019 bearing No.301335 for Rs.21,44,000/- drawn on Mandya District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Ladies Branch, Mandya, in favour of the respondent and the said Cheque, on presentation returned on 25.09.2019 with an endorsement as 'funds insufficient'. It is also contended that the respondent got issued a legal notice on 03.10.2019 and filed a suit for recovery of money. Admittedly, on service of notice in suit, the appellant appeared but did not file the written statement. Based on the evidence of plaintiff, the suit came to be decreed for a sum of Rs.21,82,367/- with current and future interest at 12% p.a. The primary contention of the appellant-defendant that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the debt is a legally enforceable debt, they were having certain transaction which was resolved in front of the Panchas, that the appellant did not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 file the police complaint against the respondent for filing a false suit wherein the respondent agreed to withdraw the suit. However, he continued the suit and the suit came to be decreed behind the back of the appellant. The various assertions made in the memorandum of appeal are admittedly not raised before the Trial Court. The contention of the appellant-defendant that there was no loan transaction and the respondent has misused the Cheque cannot be gone into on merits in the present proceedings as the suit for recovery of money based on the available document, has been decreed. However, one opportunity is required to be provided to the appellant-defendant to put forth the defense in the suit if the assertion of the appellant with regard to the claim for recovery of money is false. During the course of arguments, when a question was posed to the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant is ready and willing to show her bona fides by depositing certain amounts before the Civil Court, the matter can be remanded back to the Trial Court to re-consider the suit on merits after providing an opportunity to the appellant on merits, the learned counsel for the appellant agreed for the suggestion. However, a request is made to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 issue orders for deposit of a reasonable amount so that she could deposit the same before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent though opposed the remand initially, later submitted that if a time limit is prescribed to the appellant to file the written statement, the matter can be remanded back to the Trial Court. 9. We have considered the pleading, evidence on record and the rival contentions. It is noticed that the Trial Court has proceeded to accept the version of the respondent- plaintiff and decreed the suit without there being any written statement as well as the evidence of the appellant-defendant. Considering the nature of assertions made in the grounds of appeal, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the impugned judgment and decree is set aside on terms and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to reconsider the same after providing an opportunity to the appellant- defendant. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.105/2019 is set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43814-DB RFA No. 1473 of 2025 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to reconsider the suit on its merit. The appellant-defendant shall file the written statement on or before 27.11.2025. The appellant and the respondent shall appear before the Trial Court on 27.11.2025. The aforesaid order is subject to the appellant depositing Rs.10,00,000/- before the Trial Court within a period of 2 months i.e. on or before 31.12.2025. It is made clear that if the amount as directed is not deposited, the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.105/2019 can be enforced by the respondent against the appellant. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17