Allowed

Sri. Balakrishna Enterprises v. Mahesh Channel Partner LLP

Karnataka HC27 May 2024CRP/343/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Small Causes Court decree for money recovery. The Court held the trial court erred in decreeing the suit because the last evidence of transaction dated 05.08.2014 barred the limitation by the time the suit was filed on 04.10.2017.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court dated 02.06.2018 in S.C.No.15397/2017 were set aside.

Sri. Balakrishna Enterprises Vs Mahesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 343 OF 2018 (SC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BALAKRISHNA ENTERPRISES, NO. 472, NAGENDRA BLOCK, 50 FEET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 050, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. ANAPPA POOJARI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MAHESH CHANNEL PARTNERS LLP, NO. 142, 1^ST CROSS, C.K.C GARDEN, M. CHINNIAH LANE, LALBAGH ROAD, NALLA CROSS, 4 B, BANGALORE - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SUSHIL.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION *18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, 1964 , AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.15397/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM (SCCH-20) MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶17

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

¶18

Corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2024

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

(a) Call for the records on the file of Hon'ble V Additional Small Causes Judge And XXIV A.C.M.M (SCCH 20) Mayohall Unit. Bengaluru in S.C. No. 15397/2017.

¶24

(b) To set aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the Hon'ble V Additional Small Causes Judge And XXIV A.C.M.M (SCCH 20) court of small causes Mayohall Unit. Bengaluru in S.C. No. 15397/2017 dated 2nd June 2018 as not sustainable and barred by time as per Annexure A by allowing this C.R.P with cost

¶25

The respondent had filed a suit in S.C.No.15397/2017, seeking for recovery of an amount of Rs.52,289/-. The said suit having been decreed vide judgment dated 02.06.2018, the petitioner, who is the defendant therein, is before this Court challenging the said judgment.

¶26

Respondent though served, has chosen not to be represented in the present matter.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the suit had been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,289/-, a notice preceding the said suit issued on 22.07.2017, which has been marked as Ex.D3, was issued only for claiming a sum of Rs.7731/- and as such,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶29

a suit seeking for recovery of Rs.52,289/- could not have been filed on 04.10.2017. There being no demand for the said amount made by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit.

¶30

His further submission is that even as per the averments made in the plaint, all the transactions are of the year 2014, the last transaction being of 05.08.2014. The suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. Though there is a transaction which has been mentioned in the plaint to have occurred on 24.05.2017, there are no documents which have been produced to evidence the same and as such, there is nothing on record which would indicate the suit to have been filed within the period of limitation. In this regard, he refers to the documents which have been marked as evidence, namely Ex.P1 series and P2, Ex.P1 series being the ledger extracts and Ex.P2 being the tax invoices.

¶31

By relying on all the above, he submits that the trial court has not taken into consideration the aspect of the suit

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶33

having been barred by limitation and has wrongly decreed the suit.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers.

¶35

A perusal of Ex.P1 series would indicate that in the ledger account of the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the last transaction, which is stated to have occurred as per the said ledger extract, is on 26.03.2014 and there is no transaction dated 24.05.2017 mentioned therein. An outstanding statement which has been produced again in Ex.P1 series also indicates the last date of the transaction to be 05.08.2014 and there are no other details of the transaction in the said statement which has been produced. Insofar as Ex.P2 series is concerned, the last invoice which has been produced in Ex.P2 series is dated 05.08.2014, no further invoices thereafter have been produced by the plaintiff.

¶36

In fact, even the affidavit in lieu of evidence filed by the plaintiff discloses most of the transactions to be of the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶38

year 2014. In the affidavit in lieu of evidence, there are two invoices dated 17.05.2014 and 22.05.2015, which have been mentioned. However, neither copies of these invoices have been produced nor are those invoices referred to in the ledger statement at Ex.P1. Pertinently, these invoices have not been mentioned in the plaint, but are mentioned only in the affidavit in lieu of evidence.

¶39

In view of all the above, the transactions and the invoices being of the year 2014, the last document produced dated 05.08.2014, the suit having been filed on 04.10.2017, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court has erred in entertaining the suit and decreeing the suit, when ex facie even though they said the claim, if any, was barred by the law of limitation as far back as on 04.08.2017, the suit having been filed on 04.10.2017. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶40

:: O R D E R ::

¶41

i) The revision petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The judgment and decree passed by the V Additional of Small Causes judge and XXIV

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:17703 CRP No. 343 of 2018

¶44

A.C.M.M (SCCH-20) Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Benglauru in S.C.No.15397/2017 dated 02.06.2018 is set aside.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK

Sri. Balakrishna Enterprises v. Mahesh Channel Partner LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balakrishna Enterprises v. Mahesh Channel Partner LLP

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

A N Padma Vs M v Venkatasubbaiah Shetty

Ms Sushmitha M Vs the Vice Chancellor

Smt. Pushpa G.S. Vs Shree Siddeshwara Textile Mills Ltd.

Mr. Mohammed Abdul Lateef Vs Mr. Shaik Mohammed Ayub Khan

Venkatesh Saw Mills Vs Smt. Shantha Shenoy

M/S Legacy Global Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Shivakumar