Allowed

Smt Sarojino Lobo v. Sri R Jayaprakash

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023RFA/625/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant under Section 96 of CPC, shifting the exparte decree as he filed but unsigned his written statement. The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal after the defendant signs the document and pays costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000 to respondent. Matter remitted to trial court for fresh disposal on signing the written statement.

Smt Sarojino Lobo Vs Sri R Jayaprakash — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2008 (MON)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. SAROJINO LOBO W/O SRI THOMAS LOBO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO 53, ASHIRVAD COLONY HORAMAVU ROAD, COCONUT GROOVE BANGALORE 560 043

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI R JAYAPRAKASH S/O SRI RANGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR: JAY BUILDERS NO. 54, ASHIRVAD COLONY HORAMAVU ROAD, BANASWADI BANGALORE 560 043

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.V. SUDHAKAR., ADVOCATE (N.O.C))

¶14

THIS RFA FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.13.02.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2092/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri Amaresh A.Angadi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

The present appeal is filed challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed in OS No.2092/2006 dated 13.2.2008 on the file of Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-30).

¶21

Brief facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

¶22

The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. and costs from the defendant. After service of the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement which was not signed by the defendant. Therefore, it was rejected by the trial Court and the suit was proceeded further.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶25

Thereafter, the plaintiff got examined himself

¶26

as PW.1 and relied on five documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The defendant further did not participate in the suit by cross-examining PW.1 or adducing any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.

¶28

Sri Amaresh A. Angadi, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant reiterated the grounds in appeal memorandum and submits that a fair opportunity may be provided to the defendant to contest the suit on merits.

¶29

He further contended that non signing of the written statement by the defendant cannot be considered for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is to be construed as exparte decree and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶32

Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel for the

¶33

respondent however opposes the said submissions on behalf of the appellant and supported the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶34

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record. Admittedly, the defendant has filed the written statement. But has failed to subscribe his signature on the written statement. Therefore, the trial Court has rejected the written statement and decreed the suit of the plaintiff after recording the evidence of the plaintiff by analysing the material placed on record.

¶35

As such, impugned judgment partakes the nature of Exparte decree.

¶36

Affording an opportunity to the appellantdefendant by imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/- and remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶39

in accordance with law would meet the ends of justice in

¶40

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶41

Accordingly, following order:

¶42

(i) Appeal allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) payable to respondent on or before 04.12.2023.

¶43

(ii) The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶44

(iii) Parties shall appear before the trial Court without further notice on 04.12.2023 on which day, the defendant shall subscribe his signature to the written statement already filed and thereafter, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter on or before 30th April 2024.

¶45

(iv) Needless to emphasize that the parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:40905 RFA No. 625 of 2008

¶48

(v) No order as to costs.

¶49

(vi) Office is directed to return the trial Court records forthwith with copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Smt Sarojino Lobo v. Sri R Jayaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarojino Lobo v. Sri R Jayaprakash

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

Mr Tharun Vs Karnataka State Industrial and

H T Ramanna Gowda S/O Thirumallaiah Vs B S Sonnaulla S/O Late Baji Saheb

Sanaulla Sheriff Vs Sri Dandu Mariamma Temple Trust

M/S Composite Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Savani Carrying Pvt. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Gati Cargo Management Services

Pillappa Vs Munivenkatappa