Allowed

Raina Kumari v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023CRP/616/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a civil revision petition, allowed the challenge against an impugned judgment dismissing a suit for money recovery. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit after taking the cross-examination of the defendant-witness as nil because the plaintiff did not appear. The High Court set aside the judgment, citing violation of natural justice, and remanded the matter for reconsideration f

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dismissed the suit is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration from the stage of cross-examination of the defendant-witness.

Raina Kumari Vs the Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CRP No. 616 of 2015

¶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

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 616 OF 2015 (SC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAINA KUMARI D/O SURESH PRASAD VERMA AGEDA BOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.85, SRINIVAS HOUSE DOMALUR 7TH CROSS BENGALURU-560 071. …PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR M/S LEX JUSTICIA, ASSOCIATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR R2 INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED NO.499, J K HOUSE AMARJYOTI LAYOUT DOMLUR I STAGE BENGALURU-560 071.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KAR SMALL CAUSES, ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2015 PASSED IN S.C NO.294/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ASCJ, AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH 22), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRP No. 616 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed a suit for recovery of Rs.36,720/- from the defendant towards arrears of salary for the month of June 2012, contending that the defendant issued a letter dated 26.06.2012 stating that she has been relieved from her services and that the defendant will pay salary till 30.6.2012. Petitioner's grievance is that though she was relieved from the services on 26.06.2012, the defendant has not paid the salary of Rs.36,720/- for the month of June 2012.

¶22

The defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.6. The defendant to prove its case, the Managing Director was examined as DW.1 and got marked documents Exs.D.1 to D.6.

¶23

The Trial Court after examining the evidence on record dismissed the suit stating that, plaintiff totally failed to prove her case by adducing cogent evidence and also plaintiff did not choose to cross-examine D.W.1, against which, the present petition is filed.

¶24

¶25

CRP No. 616 of 2015

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶28

submits that the document at Ex.D6 was created by the defendant and there was sufficient cause for non appearance of the plaintiff for the cross examination of D.W.1. Hence, she submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit afresh.

¶29

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

The suit was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1 on 19.09.2015, and on that day, admittedly, the plaintiff did not choose to appear and the cross-examination of D.W.1 was taken as NIL, and thereafter the matter was listed on 21.09.2015 and on the very same day, the Trial Court posted the matter for judgment. The Trial Court without providing sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff has passed the impugned judgment, and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned judgment requires to be set

¶31

¶32

CRP No. 616 of 2015

¶33

aside, and the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for reconsidering the suit from the stage of Cross examination of D.W.1.

¶34

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) The impugned judgment dated 23.09.2015 passed by the XX Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore in S.C.No.294/2013 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit from the stage of Cross examination of D.W.1., in accordance with law after notifying the parties.

¶38

iii) The Registry to return the original documents filed by the petitioner in the present petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner after replacing the same with the photo copies.

¶39

vi) The Trial Court is requested to conclude the proceedings within 6 months from the date of next date of hearing.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Raina Kumari v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raina Kumari v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Sri Ninge Gowda Vs Sri Badrappa