- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 626 OF 2018 (SC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V RAJENDRAN S/O LATE SRI VEERARAGHAVAN R/AT-NO.3, 8TH MAIN , 9TH CROSS, RM NAGAR BANGALORE - 08 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH B.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KASH VISAWANATHAN S/O SRI PONNUSWAMY RESIDING AT-NO.2, 2ND STAGE 1ST A CROSS GOWTHAMAPURAM HALASURU BANGALORE - 08 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED IN SC.NO.1705/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Mahesh B.J., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ananda for Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present revision petition is filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore on 01.10.2018 in S.C. No.1705/2017. 3. Operative portion of the Order of the Trial Court reads as under: "The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- from the Defendant with interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of suit till realization of entire amount." 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 4.1 Revision petitioner being the defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,35,000/- with 18% interest suffered the aforesaid decree. 4.2 Case of the plaintiff is that there was an agreement to sell entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant which was terminated by volition of the parties and advance amount Rs.1,80,000/- was agreed to be returned by the defendant. 4.3 In respect of the said dispute, parties approached the jurisdictional police and on the sale agreement itself, there was an endorsement on 15.02.2017. 4.4 In the presence of the police, defendant paid Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff through Cheque No.272159 and Rs.2,72,161/-. Balance sum was agreed to be paid in a sum of Rs.65,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 4.5 Despite receipt of Rs.75,000/- plaintiff contended that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- and filed the suit suppressing the receipt of Rs.75,000/- as per the endorsement in Exhibit D1. 4.6 Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit as referred to supra. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition. 6. Sri. B.J. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to pay balance sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest at 18% per annum as per the endorsement in Exhibit D1 and decreeing the suit in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- as referred to supra has thus resulted in grave injustice and sought for allowing the revision petition in part. 7. Per contra, Sri. Ananda, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has stated in paragraph No.4 of the plaint that two cheques were given by the defendant in a sum of Rs.75,000/- and they were encashed. When that is so, the suit claim would not have been to the extent of Rs.1,35,000/-. 10. Plaintiff also contended that sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid towards the advance sale consideration and another sum of Rs.30,000/- and thus, there was a total payment of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the advance sale consideration. 11. However Exhibit D1 does not mention the receipt of Rs.2,10,000/-, but it only mentions that Rs.1,80,000/- as the total sale consideration. If the total sale consideration itself is Rs.1,80,000/- the plaintiff would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 not have paid additional sum of Rs.30,000/- as is claimed in the plaint. 12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, especially the endorsement at Ex.D1(a), wherein the parties have agreed to settle the suit claim in a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and of which Rs.75,000/- having been received by the plaintiff as found in the plaint averments itself, balance sum of Rs.65,000/- alone is due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. 13. Learned Trial Judge ignoring the factual aspect as to the contents of Exhibit D1 and Endorsement at Exhibit D1(a), decreeing the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice seeking interference of this Court in this revision petition. 14. Accordingly, taking note of the Endorsement in Exhibit D1(a), the defendant is liable to pay sum of Rs.65,000/- with 18% interest from the date of Endorsement i.e. 15.02.2017 till realisation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43715 CRP No. 626 of 2018 15. With that modification, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition allowed in part. (ii) There is already a sum of Rs.70,000/- in deposit which the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw and balance sum shall be paid by the defendant within a period of eight weeks from today. (iii) Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in a sum of Rs.65,000/- from 15.02.2017 till realisation with 18% interest along with proportionate costs. (iv) Order accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25