Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2 OF 2015 (MON) BETWEEN: M/S. P. L. RHISHIK CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD, NO.11/4, SUVARNA BHAVAN, MAZZANINE FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560052
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. L.D. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH P. N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ARAVIND FABRICATOR, FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, OPPOSITE MICO MAIN GATE, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD NAGANATHAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE – 560 100. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR - MR. PILLAIYAR, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B N SRIDHARAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA FILED U/ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1974/2011 ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
Digitally signed by BASAVARAJU PAVITHRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 passed by XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.1974/2011.
The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court for the sake of easy reference.
The plaintiff is carrying on the work of industrial fabrication, steel metal works and all types of maintenance works, grills, gates, rolling shutter, truss work, etc., and accordingly, has carried out various job works of the defendant at its Jigani site and therefore, for the works carried out by the plaintiff for the defendant the plaintiff has raised a bill for a sum of Rs.8,29,330/-. Upon the demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,22,000/-, but has not paid the balance amount of Rs.5,58,194/-.
Therefore, plaintiff has
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
requested the defendant to make payment of balance amount, but defendant has not paid the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs.5,58,194/- with cost and interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation, against which the defendant has preferred the present appeal.
It is the case of defendant that the defendant has not entrusted work to the plaintiff and the defendant does not have to pay any balance amount to the plaintiff and suit filed by the plaintiff is false and concocted. Further it is the case of the defendant that defendant is due only for a sum of Rs.42,047/- and accordingly, sent the said amount through cheque but the plaintiff has refused to receive the said cheque. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is exorbitant one. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
The trial court has framed issues putting the burden on the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff proves that it
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
has carried out various job works as per the offer of the defendant at Jigani Site worth of Rs.8,29,330/- and whether the defendant has failed to pay balance amount to the plaintiff.
The proprietor of the plaintiff firm is examined as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-35. The defendant has examined one of his authorised person as DW1, but has not adduced any documentary evidence.
After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court has decreed the suit for Rs.5,58,194/- with cost and interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation.
The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the defendant has not entrusted any work to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not carried out any work of the defendant. Further submitted that the defendant has owed only a sum of Rs.42,047/- and when
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
defendant has sent the amount through cheque the plaintiff has refused to receive the said cheque. Hence, claim of the plaintiff is contrary to the evidence on record. Further submitted that there is no signature of the defendant found on the bills - Exs.P-1 to P-19 raised by the plaintiff. Therefore, documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff are created one for the purpose of suit. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has carried out job work and raised bills and site engineer of the defendant company has put his signature on the bills and accordingly, submitted the defendant. The very conduct of the defendant on payment of Rs.2,22,000/- itself proves that the defendant has taken work from the plaintiff. Further submitted in the income tax returns submitted by the defendant to the Income Tax Authorities, the defendant had shown the work carried out by the plaintiff
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
as expenditure. Hence, it fortifies the case of the plaintiff. Further submitted the evidence of DW1 does not discredit the plaintiff’s case. Therefore, the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and accordingly granted decree, which needs no interference except to dismiss the appeal.
Upon rival submission of the counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff proves that he has carried out the work of the defendant worth of Rs.8,29,330/- and in-turn the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- and the defendant is still having balance amount to pay to the tune of Rs.5,58,194/- to the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires any interference by this Court?
RE. POINT NO.1:
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
It is the simple case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has carried out work of the defendant at Jigani Site at Bengaluru and raised bill of Rs.8,29,330/-. Exs.P-1 to P-19 are the bills raised by the plaintiff submitted to the defendant. In the said Exs.P-1 to P-19 – bills, the signature of the Director of defendant-company may not be appearing, but it is the case of the plaintiff that the site engineer of the defendant has put his signature on the said bills. It is quite natural that Director of the company always need not put signature on the bills and any person authorised by the company can put signature on it. Therefore, accepting this submission there is no doubt as expressed by the defendant regarding Exs.P-1 to P-19 bills.
The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,22,000/-, which itself proves that there was a transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding work carried out by the plaintiff. Further it is the case of the defendant that the defendant has owed only Rs.42,047/- to the plaintiff
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
and accordingly sent cheque to the plaintiff, but plaintiff has refused to receive the said cheque. This conduct of the defendent itself proves that there was a transaction between plaintiff and defendant regarding the work carried out and the defendant has owed amount. There may be dispute regarding quantum of amount, but that is proved by the plaintiff by producing Exs.P-1 to P-19 bills. Further Ex.P-21 is the email report sent by the defendant to the plaintiff that defendant has sent the payment details till 06.04.2009 attached to the said email and according to this the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,22,000/-. When the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant, the defendant has replied as per Ex.P-34 and in the said letter the defendant had stated that whatever the bills and invoices submitted at site are subject to certification by the concerned engineer at the site. Therefore, this reply of the defendant as per Ex.P-34 proves that what are the bills and invoices submitted by the plaintiff are at cross verification by the site engineer and that is what the plaintiff has made out in his case regarding the work
- 9 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
carried out and raised bills and took signature of the site engineer.
Further DW1 who is the authorised signatory of the defendant-company has lead evidence denying the transaction with the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination DW1 admitted that plaintiff has issued legal notice as per Ex.P-30 and Ex.P-34 is the reply given by the defendant.
Further DW1 admitted in the cross examination that defendant company has stated about the expenditure of the work carried out through the plaintiff in the income tax returns. Therefore, all the evidence on record prove that the defendant is liable to pay the amount.
Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity by the trial court. Therefore, trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to correct conclusion in decreeing the suit. There is no merit found in the appeal filed by the defendant. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19222 RFA No. 2 of 2015
the affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative. The appeal is dismissed with cost by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Sd/- JUDGE
DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39