Dismissed

Shri Basava Enterprises, v. Shri Raju S/O. Ramachandra Nadiger

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024RSA/100222/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for mandatory injunction directing return of three cheques and permanent injunction. Trial court decreed; first appellate court reversed on re-appreciation of evidence. High Court held plaintiff failed to prove the transaction or handing over of cheques, found no substantial question of law, and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the appellate decree.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Basava Enterprises, Vs Shri Raju S/O… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

RSA NO. 100222 OF 2017 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI BASAVA ENTERPRISES, MANIYAR COMPLEX KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI RAJKUMAR S/O. LATE NARAYAN BASAVA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MAIYAR COMPLEX, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE )

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2024.12.10
10:20:23
+0530

¶14

SHRI RAJU S/O. RAMACHANDRA NADIGER, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, R/O. VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580 006.

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL AND SRI. ROHIT S PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1)

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.110/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.121/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The plaintiff is before this Court, assailing the judgment and decree in R.A No.110/2013 dated 17.12.2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court” for short), reversing, the judgment and decree in O.S No.121/2009 dated 25.01.2012 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court” for short).

¶23

Parties herein are referred to as per the rank

¶24

before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶25

Suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction

¶26

against the defendant to return the three cheques bearing Nos.465450, 465451 and 880842 without misusing and consequently for the relief of permanent injunction to

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶28

restrain the defendant from causing any obstruction of interference in the business of the plaintiff.

¶29

The suit stood uncontested. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P43. The trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff corroborates with the case of the plaintiff, that the same is not rebutted by the defendant, thus was of the opinion that the cheques were handed over to the defendant in the course of business and proved that the defendant is threatening to misuse the said cheques and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for return of cheques and for injunction.

¶30

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred

¶31

appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶33

holding that there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant and no materials are forthcoming to indicate the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶35

The plaintiff has approached the Court seeking for a mandatory injunction stating that the defendant has to return three cheques without misusing and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from crossing any obstructions in the business of the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of sale of Ayurvedic medicines on a wholesale and retail basis at Hubballi and was stockist of the Ayurvedic medicines of Baidyanath Company, Bangalore. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the authorized medical representative of Baidyanath Company

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶37

and he has come in contact with the plaintiff since many years as such the plaintiff used to place orders for the supply of Ayurvedic medicines of Baidyanath Company with the defendant and the company used to send the medicines and during the course of his business used to give cheques and letterheads duly signed to the defendant to clear the company balance and that he has handed over the cheques stated above.

¶38

Burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the cheques and letter heads were handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant during the course of business, even in the absence of any written statement, no cross of the plaintiff and no material placed by the defendant to disbelieve the same, the plaintiff has to establish his case on his own and not on weakness of the defendant, nothing is forthcoming about any transaction/contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the plaintiff to issue cheques during the course of business. The plaintiff having failed to establish as to whether during the course

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17110 RSA No. 100222 of 2017

¶40

of the business the cheques were handed over to the

¶41

defendant, the First Appellate Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the said relief against the defendant and dismissed the suit. The manner in which the First Appellate Court has appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference under Section 100 CPC and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this present appeal and this Court pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶44

ii. The Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court stands confirmed.

¶45

SD/-

¶46

(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

¶47

AT CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Shri Basava Enterprises, v. Shri Raju S/O. Ramachandra Nadiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Basava Enterprises, v. Shri Raju S/O. Ramachandra Nadiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekarappa S/O Gaddepa Purad Vs Umesh Ningappa Badiger

Chamansan Mamadusab Ganajur Vs Smt Rudravva

Sri. Venkappa S/O Ogundappa Budakunti @ Shetsanadi Vs Sri. Bheemappa @ Ajjappa S/O Hanumappa Budakunti

Veeranagouda S/O Rudragouda Vs Shadaksharappa S/O Veerabhadrappa Hogetoppal

Shivaji S/O Appayya. Kotekar Vs Smt.Neelu W/O. Krdri. Mrndale

Gangadharappa S/O Parutappa Vs Gangappa S/O Mahadevappa Dharwad