I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TEE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2oo97D=._V
BEFORE O O'
THE HONBLE MR.JUs'rICE s.N.sATYANARAfEANA " A'
CRP No.1o4/2009"' '_
BETWEEN: J
I. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 'O
No.1, HLBC, DIVISION,
CI~IA1\ENARAYAPATNA--57.3116.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, HEI/IA'J*ATE_I_ _
GORUR, HASSAN DIsTR1C_T--573'_12jo. ' ._
{BY SR1. K.s.I3IIARA'I'*I=I'Is:IIIIxIAR_&.,Ié.I3.;IA¥AIIU1\/IAR, ADVs.]
AND: V H '
M/s PRABHU ENGINEARRINGTAND
AGvRICULI"£;lRAL1NDUS'TR1_ESv, CHANNARAYAPATNA,
R'.E§PRE-SENTEI3 BY. ITS OWNER C.PRAEIIAIENT
T-Ir§Is.,ICRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF' CPC AGAINST
ORDER 13ATED:29.08.20G8 PASSED IN LAC.276/1998 ON
'7TTI~IE FILE THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, {SR.DN.) AND CJM,
'«.M~"ITSORE, REJECIING THE APPLICATION U/S18 OF THE ACT
_ .IjII,ED,'1AOvEaEYOND LIMITATION.
-°_CO'URT*IvIAOE THE FOLLOWING:
COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
£1'
ORDER
Heard the counsel for the petitioners
Misc.Cvl.No.114.-37/ 2009. For the reasons statedv ”
affidavit accompanying thereto, Misc.-Cvl-.–No.-ll is,’ it
allowed. The delay of 67 days in filing:”therevisionl pletitioin
condoned. , .
2. This revision petition ____is~..V_i’ile_d elhalylenging the
judgment and decree passed-‘in. wherein the
judgment and decree_e’dated:.f50;–1.:l.2095 254/ 2003
is modified. l.nitia1iy:_j.O;S.l\lo.,.25_4/L:20O3Wlis filed by the
respondent h.ereii’l of money due to him for
having suppliedliron fab._ri’o.at’ion to the petitioners in the year
1,99?’ .__to the’v—supply order dated 24.3.97. The
amou_n~t paid in that behalf is Rs.14,760/- and the
‘same till 2003. Hence, suit was filed for recovery
«Rs.,31,400_/ which includes principal and interest at 24%
.ariiount from the date of Supply of material till date of
l ‘iii’i’ngthe suit.
“”‘l
3 ,
3. It is the case of the respondent that during
pendency of the suit a sum of Rs.7000/~ was paid and.._the
balance of Rs.7,760/~–» was remaining due. 3
decreed only for the balance amount of Rs.7,76ifi/:–
there being any order as to costs and interlest-;’ }tl_en_c.eV,'”an’.
appeal in R.A.No.6/ 2006 was filed byl4″the-..appell.’an:t’
the said judgment and decree in
The said appeal was modifying the
judgment and decree passed’ to the
extent that the :he1*ein shalilillbc—-entitled to recover
Rs.7,76o/- at “2’1″c/a p.a., on Rs.14,76o/_
from 01.01oi.ta-24.1a;i2fOO2. :aaa at 21% on Rs.7,750/~ from
24.12.2002. up taaa. 1.11;2oo5;”The plaintiff was also awarded
prtapomaalataieoa; throughout.
_4: revision though the respondent/ plaintiff is
i’=duly served, remained absent before this court and the
-aiziatter has” come up today for orders on miscellaneous
seeking condonation of delay. After delay was
‘eoncloned the petitioners were heard regarding admission.
Exam’
4
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready
and willing to pay the balance amount of
decreed in O.S.No. 254/2.003. However, the ‘
with respect to awarding of interest at’.-21% A ta
24.12.2002 on Rs.l4,760/– and at 21%
24.12.2002 to 30.11.2005.
5. After hearing the counse1’=for_the petitioners, after
going through the records._fiitA ‘is ;Vi_cle:~i1-.,y’p”‘..that there was
absolutely no reason for the.ipetiti.ol1*:ers ” either to delay
payment a that was supplied by
the respondent the claim which has
necessitated fililnglof the is seen that the order passed
by” the I awarding interest at 21% is just
judgment and decree passed by the first
1.V’i”~ia.ppe1late,__Court”does riot call for interference in this revision.
theliability to pay the same should have been fixed
th’e’._Ei§:3cutive Engineer and Chief Engineer who were
‘fiinetioiliing in such capacity as on the date when the goods
supplied by the respondent herein. The petitioners
5″:
shall satisfy the decree passed by the first appellate Court in
RAB / 2006 and recover the same from the concerned-«
who were working in the capacity of 15% and ”
herein at the time when the goodsfwerep i’th-her
respondent herein to petitioners office.”.VThe” said’
responsible for non–payment of amount ‘goods it
supplied by the respondeiit to project: which
resulted in the respondent suit causing
inconvenience to .. merit in the
revision which herein seeking
modificationtofllthei just and necessary to
observe thaththe paying the interest and
costs as ordered 4°E33rV_:Vtl*..e..’-Iappellate Court in R.A.No. 6/ 2006,
shall’-A rec-over: personéallyv from the Officers who were
as Executive Engineer, Chief Engineer
“–.Z)ivision’,.i’.w'(A3l:orur, Hassan, who were solely responsible
‘ in clearing payment due to the respondent as and
goods were supplied. Ofiice of the petitioners shali
pay the decree amount to plaintiff to initiate
EM
6
proceedings to recover the same from the aforesaid officers
within six months from this date.
With these observations, the CRP filed by the V’
is dismissed. .
Pr/–