- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 440 OF 2023 (SC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SRINIVASA MEDICAL AGENCIES SHOP NO.18, D.NO.14/196/1 GROUND FLOOR, SAI ADARSH APARTMENT KAMALANAGAR NEW TOWN ANANTHPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 001 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR J SRINIVASA NAIDU S/O LATE SRI J C SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PREM DISTRIBUTORS NO.1, PARISHRAMA SHOP NO.3 26TH CROSS, CUBBONPET BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR BHARATH KUMAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR L., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 DECREE DATED 18.04.2023 PASSED IN S.C. NO.15160/2022 ON THE FILE OF V ASCJ AND 24TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Raghavendra Rao K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the judgment and decree passed in SC No.15160/2022. Operative portion of the Trial Court decree reads as under: "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed along with cost. The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff, a total sum of Rs.1,38,316/- along with interest @ 24% pa., on Rs.1,02,716/- from the date of suit till realization. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for recovery of some Rs.1,38,316/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 4.2 Plaint averments further reveal that plaintiff is a proprietary concern dealing in the medicine and medical equipments in the name and style of M/s. Prem Distributors'. Defendant being the customer of the plaintiff purchased goods on credit over a period of time and till 05.04.2022, a sum of Rs.1,02,716.44 paisa was pending in the credit account of the defendant. 4.3 Defendant promised to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase, but - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 failed to do so. The statement of account as per the account of the defendant are as under : 1. Principle Rs.1,02,716.44 2. Interest from 07.01.2022 to 15.07.2022 18% Rs.34,099.56 3. Notice Charges Rs.1,500.00 TOTAL Rs.1,38316.00 4.4 Plaintiff issued a legal notice, but there was no compliance nor reply. Therefore suit came to be filed. In paragraph No.11, plaintiff restricted the interest at 18% though invoice stipulated 24% interest on delayed payment. 4.5 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court, engaged the services of a counsel and denied the allegations made in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4.6 Trial was conducted and in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined Proprietor of the plaintiff got examined as PW1 and placed on record - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 eight documents namely copy of the registration certificate, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Invoice, Cheque, Endorsement, Ledger Account Extract, Legal notice and Postal acknowledgment. 4.7 As against the said evidence, respondent got examined himself as RW1 and placed on record a letter which was marked as Exhibit D1. 4.8 On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as referred to supra. 5. Being agreed by the same, defendant has filed the present of revision petition on the following grounds: The Court below has committed material illegality and material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction causing miscarriage of justice. The judgment passed by the Court below is not in accordance with law. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. The very plaint averments are vague and uncertain. The averments would clearly disclose that the Respondent/Plaintiff himself is not certain and clear about the claim which he has made in the plaint. This - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 indicates the falsity of the case put forward by the Respondent/Plaintiff and it also indicates that no cause of action is disclosed from the averments made in the plaint. Hence, it is a clear case where the plaint ought to have been rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. The Respondent/Plaintiff has averred at paragraph no. 3 of the plaint thus: "3. The defendant is customer of plaintiff and has purchased goods on credit from several years till 05.04.2022 and found due a sum of Rs. 102716.44 the defendant has cleared all invoices except invoice no. 0005408 dtd 07/01/2021 for Rs. 24376.00...." At paragraph no. 5, the Respondent/Plaintiff has averred thus: "5. The defendant as per the statement of account enclosed has paid part payments of Rs.12716.44. ... Further, at paragraph no. 6, it is averred thus: "6. The defendant is due as follows: 1. Principle Rs. 102716.44" Ex. P7 is the legal notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dated 15.06.2022 in which at paragraph no. 2, it is stated thus: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 "2. Mt clients submit that you are found due a sum of Rs.102977.00 towards principle plus interest Rs. 34099.00 total 137096.00 follows" A perusal of the averments at paragraph no. 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint and the document produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff at Ex.P7 clearly indicates the inherent contradictions in the case put the forward by Respondent/Plaintiff. The Respondent/Plaintiff is himself not certain about the claim which he has against the Petitioner/Defendant. This itself indicates the falsity of the case put forward by the Respondent/Plaintiff. Such pleadings could not have been the basis for adjudication of the case. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Paragraph no. 9 of the plaint reads thus: "9. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01.04.22 when defendant started purchasing goods and on all dates of transactions made and finally on 05.04.2022 when last payment/transaction took place at Bangalore within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court." A perusal of the entire plaint indicates that, the Respondent/Plaintiff has not pleaded about any transactions dated 01.04.2022 от 05.04.2022. In fact, the averment made in paragraph no. 9 is contrary to the very case put - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 forward by him. Moreover, none of the documents produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff indicate any transaction between the parties on the said dates. The cause of action pleaded by the Respondent/Plaintiff is illusory. On this ground alone, the plaint ought to have been nipped in the bud. The Court below has not considered this aspect of the matter in adjudicating the case. The Court below at paragraph no. 15 has observed thus: "15. The cause of action to the suit arose as per the plaintiff on 07.06.2022, when cheque was last dishonored..." A perusal of paragraph no. 9 of the plaint clearly indicates that the Respondent/Plaintiff has not at all pleaded the said cause of action. The Court below has misdirected itself in this regard. This has resulted in the Court below coming to erroneous conclusions. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Petitioner/ Defendant carries on its business in Andhra Pradesh. It is the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff that the invoice is raised for the goods delivered to the Petitioner/Defendant in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen in Andhra Pradesh. Such being the case, the Court below has no jurisdiction to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 adjudicate the instant case. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction and hence a nullity. The claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff is based on the Invoice dated 07.01.2021. There are no pleadings on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff as to the transaction between the parties which has culminated in the said invoice. The averments made in the plaint are as vague as could be. PW-1 in his cross examination states that the transaction has occurred in the year 2020-21. He admits in his cross examination that, he has not produced the statement for the said financial year. In this view of the matter, the Respondent/Plaintiff has failed to establish his case. In fact, the Court below at paragraph no. 11 has specifically taken note of the admission made by PW-1 that there is no document to show that the Defendant has placed the order. Such being the case, the Court below has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff. It is submitted that, the very findings recorded by the Court below in the course of its judgment ought to have resulted in dismissal of the suit. In paragraph No.8 of its judgment, the Court below observes thus: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 "8.... It is also found that the dates mentioned in the plaint are not tallying with the dates mentioned in the evidence affidavit, where it is very much clear that there is cut and paste of a computer printout from other cases...." This clearly discloses that the evidence led is not in consonance with the pleadings. In this view of the matter, the Respondent/Plaintiff has not proved his case and hence the Court below ought to have dismissed the suit. In paragraph No.12 of its judgment, the Court below has deviated from the settled principles of law and the settled principles of rules of evidence and proceeds to cast burden on the Respondent/Defendant. This perverse approach has resulted in grave injustice. It is submitted that, the Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff has made a correction with regard to the amounts mentioned in the affidavit after it is notarized and filed before the Court. The corrections made are apparent on the face of the record. Even though the Court below finds that the said corrections are in fact found in the affidavit, without considering the effect of the said act, the Court below has decreed the suit. This is clear from paragraph no. 21 of the judgment of the Court below. It is submitted that, the Respondent/Plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that, he has license to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 run the medical shop. Ex. P1 is a Registration Certificate in Form GST REG-06. In Ex.P1, in Column No. 6, period of validity is shown as "01.07.2017". However, the next column is left blank. Therefore, the period of validity is not disclosed. In Column No.9, the date of issue of certificate is shown as 08.07.2018. However, as stated above, the period of validity commences from 01.07.2017. The alleged certificate also does not disclose the nature of business. In the signature column, no signature is found. On the other hand, a sign of "?" (question mark) is visible. The Respondent/Plaintiff except producing Ex.P.1, he has not chosen to explain the anomalies found in the said certificate. The Court below ought to have considered this material evidence on record while adjudicating the matter. It is a case where adjudication is made without considering the material evidence on record. While answering Point No. 4 at paragraph no. 23 of the judgment, the Court below has recorded thus: "23. Point No. 4: The Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 1,02,716/- and has calculated interest and notice charges, finally tuning to Rs. 1,38,316 till filing of suit." However, the operative portion of the judgment reads thus: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 "The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff, a total sum of Rs. 1,38,316/- along with interest @ 24% pa., on Rs. 1,02,716/- from the date of suit till realization." Therefore, even though the claim of Rs. 1,38,316/- is inclusive of interest, again interest at 24% p.a is ordered on Rs. 1,02,716/- which is unsustainable in law. In paragraph no.11 of the plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has confined the rate of interest to 18% p.a. However, the rate of interest found in prayer column is not in consonance with the plaint averments. Therefore, the Court below has committed an illegality in granting rate of interest at 24% p.a. The affidavit filed by Respondent/Plaintiff produced at Ex. P2 is not in compliance with the requirements contemplated in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the documentary evidence produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no legally acceptable evidence on record. When there is no legally acceptable evidence on record, the Court below has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit. The same is not in accordance with law. The Respondent/Plaintiff is himself not certain with the claim made by him. A perusal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the Respondent/Plaintiff clearly - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 indicates the inherent contractions in the case put forward by him. None of the documents produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff prove the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it is not clear from the entire judgment as to on what basis, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved his case. The Court below has proceeded with the case of the Petitioner/Defendant in holding that, the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved his case. This procedure adopted by the Court below is in violation of the well settled principles of adjudication of the case. There is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the suit has been decreed on surmises and conjectures. 6. Sri. K. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that Exhibit P2 is not in conformity with the prescribed format. Therefore, the ledger account which is maintained in the computer being the electronic evidence, cannot be countenanced in law and therefore decreeing of the suit has resulted in miscarriage of justice. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 7. He would further contend that when the defendant has denied the transaction as is mentioned in the plaint coupled with the letter written by the defendant vide Exhibit D1 would conclude that the plaintiff allegedly supplied the goods and which was not in conformity with the demand made by the defendant and therefore defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim. 8. He would also invite the attention of the Court, when the ledger account is not proved, the liability based on the invoice could not have been considered by the Trial Court especially in the absence of placing the original or the office copy of the invoice on record which is the primary evidence and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Counsel for respondent absent. Hence, this Court considered the material on record based on the arguments put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 10. In the case on hand, no doubt, the ledger extract placed on record vide Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P2 is the self-attested certificate as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Ledger account is maintained on the computer and therefore there is no dispute that it is an electronic evidence and therefore for the proof of Exhibit P6, proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was necessary. 12. Plaintiff, no doubt in the certificate stated that he himself operates the computer and therefore he had downloaded the same from the computer he has given the make of the computer and the software used in it. 13. However, as per the requirement of unamended Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the particulars furnished by the plaintiff vide Exhibit P2 would not suffice to be treated as a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, for want of few more parameters - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 namely internet protocol address and other particulars of the computer that was put in use and the time and date that has been utilized for downloading the records from the primary evidence namely the computer maintained in the office of the Plaintiff/concern is not mentioned in Exhibit P2. 14. Thus, probative value of Exhibit P6 cannot be accepted even with the aid of Exhibit P2. 15. Having said thus, suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed by allowing the revision petition only on the ground that there is no proper proof of Exhibit P6 inasmuch as the defendant has issued a Cheque vide Exhibit P4 which came to be dishonoured vide Exhibit P5. Exhibit P3-Invoice is the basis for issue of Cheque for Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P5. Exhibit P3-invoice is also not proved properly except marking it. 16. Nevertheless, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when a Cheque is issued, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 there is a statutory presumption that the Cheque is issued for the purpose of consideration, date, acceptance and other details including the holder in due course. 17. In the case on hand, the defendant did not deny the issuance of Cheque nor there is any reply to the legal notice issued vide Exhibit P7. 18. No doubt Exhibit D1 is the letter which has been addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff with regard to the improper supply of the goods or supply of the goods without there being any demand by the defendant. 19. The same would not advance the case of the defendant to any extent inasmuch as at the most, if there is an excess supply by the plaintiff, the only course that was available to the defendant is to return the goods and not to take a defence that he is not liable to pay the amount as per Exhibit P3-invoice. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 20. No proper rebuttal evidence is placed on record by the defendant to annul the presumption available under law insofar as Exhibit P4-cheque is concerned. 21. Thus, even in the absence of the material evidence in the form of ledger extract for want of proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that decreeing the suit of the plaintiff based on the other material evidence on record is just and proper. 22. However, interference is warranted in the case on hand with regard to the rate of interest especially when plaintiff himself in the plaint has restricted the interest at 18% per annum, the Trial Court ignoring the same, decreeing the suit at 24% per annum based on the invoice marked at Exhibit P3. 23. Therefore, the trial Court decree needs to be modified by reducing the interest rate from 24% to 18% per annum. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49345 CRP No. 440 of 2023 24. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part while maintaining the decree of the Trial Court in a sum of Rs.1,38,316/-, the defendant is entitled to receive interest at 18% per annum on principal sum of Rs.1,02,716/- from the date of suit till realization. (ii) Ordered accordingly. (iii) Amount in deposit in a sum of a₹ 60,000 is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent plaintiff under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT-SG