Allowed

Sri Ninge Gowda v. Sri Badrappa

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023CRP/259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6(1) of CPC, directed the defendant to pay an admitted sum of Rs. 4,35,990/- with interest, and reserved the limitation issue for trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application allowed; respondent directed to pay Rs. 4,35,990/- with interest at 6% p.a.; trial court to adjudicate balance claim; limitation kept open.

Sri Ninge Gowda Vs Sri Badrappa — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 259 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NINGE GOWDA, S/O SRI. NANJAPPA, R/AT FLAT NO. 302, "SUPREME COMFORTS", DWARAKANGAR LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, BDA BSK 6TH STAGE, CHANNASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 098,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA V. S. AND SRI. G.S. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATES)

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. BADRAPPA, S/O LATE RACHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4 AND 5, "AMMA ARCHID” GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, SUPRAJA NAGAR, CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶14

ALSO AT,

¶15

¶16

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶17

HONGANURU GRAMA, HONGANURU POST, SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571 117.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. NIKHIL D. KAMATH, ADVOCATE VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2023 NOTICE TO SOLE FOR RESPONDENT)

¶20

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2020 PASSED ON IA No. 2 IN OS No.2561/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE IA No.2 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶21

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,00,000/-

¶24

from the defendant, stating that the said amount was borrowed by the defendants for purchasing the immovable properties. The defendants entered appearance, and filed the written statement. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that he received a sum of Rs.6,35,990/-, and not Rs.14,00,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff and he further admitted that he is due a sum of Rs.4,35,990/-.

¶25

¶26

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶27

The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No.3 under Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC, praying to pass judgment and decree on the categorical admission made by the defendant that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,35,990/-, out of which he has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the month of October-2016, and he further assured to the plaintiff, that he will pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,35,990/- within reasonable time.

¶28

The trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the application stating that, the issue is framed, as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not and accordingly, dismissed the application. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the categorical admission made by the defendant, the trial Court ought to have exercised the power under Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC, and passed the judgment and decree. However, the trial Court without exercising the said power has dismissed the said application, and the same is unsustainable.

¶30

¶31

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentdefendant submits that, the defendant has categorically denied that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff, and issue is framed, as to whether the suit is barred by limitation, and as such, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submits that the claim of the plaintiff is bared by limitation, and the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

¶33

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶34

A perusal of the written statement indicates that, the defendant has categorically admitted in Paragraphs-3, 5, 11 and 14, that he had borrowed in all a sum of Rs.6,35,990/-, and out of said amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid to the plaintiff in the month of October-2016, and the defendant had assured to the plaintiff, that he would repay the remaining amount of Rs.4,35,990/- within reasonable time.

¶35

Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC specifies that, the where admission of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court

¶36

¶37

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶38

may at any stage of suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions and whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule(1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was passed.

¶39

In the instant case, though the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from the defendant, however, filed an application, restricting the claim to Rs.4,35,990/- since, the defendant has categorically admitted the liability to the said extent, and also the suit was filed within three years from the date, the defendant acknowledged the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,35,990/-. The trial Court instead of exercising its power under the said provisions, has rejected the application, and the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovering the admitted liability of Rs.4,35,990/- from the defendant. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

¶41

CRP No. 259 of 2021

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. The impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed in I.A. 3 by the XXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.2561/2019 is hereby set aside and consequently, I.A.3 is hereby allowed.

¶45

iii. The defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,35,990/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till actual realization.

¶46

iv. Registry to draw a decree in terms of the order under sub-rule-2 of Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC.

¶47

v. The trial Court to proceed to adjudicate the claim of

¶48

the petitioner for recovering the balance amount in accordance with law.

¶49

All contentions including limitation are kept open.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

RKA

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Ninge Gowda v. Sri Badrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ninge Gowda v. Sri Badrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Mohan Kumar a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajeshwaran Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadevamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Leela Poojarthy Vs Smt Pushpa

Raina Kumari Vs the Managing Director