Revision petition against a Small Causes Court decree passed ex parte after the petitioner's absence caused by his advocate's wrong date entry. Relying on the petitioner's acquittal in the related cheque case, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded for defendant's evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:19076 CRP No. 288 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 288 OF 2018 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI MADAN KUMAR S/O K RAVI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O NO.617, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560010
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI S VINAYAKA UPPAR @ S VINAYAKA S/O SRI SUBHASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, MANJUANTHANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010
…RESPONDENT
(REPRESENTED SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2018 IN S.C.NO.15318/2014 PASSED BY THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIII ACMM, BENGALURU, (SCCH-9) AND ETC..
THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:19076 CRP No. 288 of 2018
ORDER
1. Set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2018 in S.C.No.15318/2014 passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge & XIII ACMM, Bengaluru, (SCCH-9).
2. Call for the records.
3. Pass such other order or direction as deemed fit to pass under the circumstances of the case including the order for costs.
matter was posted for judgment on 24.02.2018 noting the absence of defendant.
NC: 2024:KHC:19076 CRP No. 288 of 2018
passed in C.C. No.26232/2014, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice that the order, judgment and decree dated 2.03.2018 in S.C. No.15318/2018 is required to be set aside, so as to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence and address arguments in the said proceeding, the evidence of the plaintiff having been completed. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
ii. The judgment and decree dated 2.03.2018 in S.C. No.15318/2014 passed by the 15th Additional Small Causes Judge and 23rd ACMM, Bengaluru is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said court without requiring any notice on 18.06.2024.
the petitioner. If the affidavit in lieu of evidence is not filed on that date and/or the petitioner or petitioner's witness is not present, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this order and the judgment and decree dated 2.03.2018 will stand.
Sd/JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree in S.C.No.15318/2014, passed without adequate opportunity to defend due to a wrong date entered by the advocate, should be set aside?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI MADAN KUMAR S/O K RAVI
SRI S VINAYAKA UPPAR @ S VINAYAKA S/O SRI SUBHASH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
