- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 315 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1. SMT. NEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA 2. SRI HARISH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA 3. SMT. ANNAPURNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA 4. SMT. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YELACHAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 AND: 1. SHUSHRUSHA NURSING HOME B.B. ROAD, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 REP. BY ITS MANAGER MR. NARASIMHAMURTHY 2. SRI. Y.N. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF HEAD CONSTABLE, AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1049/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Krishna Kishore S., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Balagangadhar G. S., learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Legal representatives of defendant No.1 are the revision petitioners challenging the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in SC No.1049/2017 on the file of Ist Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) dated 27.04.2019 in this revision petition. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. Husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other revision petitioners by name Ramakrishnappa was admitted to the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s hospital for medical treatment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 3.2. It is contended that Ramakrishnappa was cured with his ailments and he was discharged from the hospital but the hospital charges and the treatment bill amount remained unpaid. 3.3. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff which was served on defendant No.2 but was not served on the legal representatives of defendant No.1. 3.4. Ramakrishnappa later died and suit came to be filed against the legal representatives of Ramakrishnappa and defendant No.2 who is none other than the brother of Ramakrishnappa. 3.5. Before the Trial Court, defendant No.2 being the brother of Ramakrishnappa did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. 3.6. Revision petitioners maintained a defence before the Trial Court that it is defendant No.2 who took initiative in admitting Ramakrishnappa to the plaintiff’s hospital and it is his responsibility to clear the bill. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 3.7. It was also contended that since there is no legal notice that was received by the revision petitioners, suit against them is to be dismissed. 4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, examined the probative value of the documents that were placed on record namely in-patient record vide Ex.P.1 and office copy of the legal notice and three postal acknowledgements vide Exs.P.2 to 5 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered to pay sum of Rs.69,350/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. recoverable from both the revision petitioners as well as defendant No.2. 5. Validity of the said order is called in question, in this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that revision petitioners are daily wage workers and they were not taken into confidence by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 defendant No.2 who is the brother of Ramakrishnappa and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 while admitting Ramakrishnappa to the hospital. Therefore, they are unable to pay the decreetal amount. 7. He would further contend that legal notice is not served on the present revision petitioners and it was served on defendant No.2 who kept the revision petitioners in dark and therefore, the revision petitioners are not liable to pay the suit claim. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that Ramakrishnappa was treated effectively in the hospital and on the assurance of defendant No.2, Ramakrishnappa was discharged from the hospital after curing the ailments. Therefore, the present revision petitioners being the legal representatives of Ramakrishnappa cannot plead that they are not liable to pay the suit claim and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 9. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, conditional order of this Court dated 25.11.2019, is not complied. 11. Nevertheless, the matter is taken up on merits and took into consideration the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties. 12. Admittedly, Ramakrishnappa was cured of all his medical ailments after admission into the plaintiff’s hospital. 13. Whether at all, defendant No.2 who was alone responsible for the payment of the hospital charges or not cannot be a ground for denial of the decreetal claim by the revision petitioner inasmuch as they are the wife and children of Ramakrishnappa. 14. Whether the defendant No.2 did not take the revision petitioners into confidence before admitting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019 Ramakrishnappa to the plaintiff’s hospital or not cannot be a subject matter to be considered in this revisional petition inasmuch as Ramakrishnappa was cured of all his medical ailments and was discharged from the plaintiff’s hospital and later on, he died. 15. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners that they are not liable to pay the decreetal amount cannot be countenanced in law. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50