rvvwffi'
EN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'E3LE MR. EUSTICEZ-'RAVI. :}4~raL:ArdA1.':{
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No§1.361/2oo'4e = "
BETWEEN:
ETC Agencies ,
Prop:Mohammed Harweef-.S'a_it'._ " '
Aged about 40 years, 1 "
S/o Mohammed I.brahim-~- '
Central Street, 1 . '
Bazaar _*, gf", . . ; _.jo
Mandya. V ...APPELLANT
(By sac; §"P;.'Mo}é1aoJ,::f:~;iX(i\}o~«;a-te)
AND:
M/S Ejsahsal FiVoL;:.r.V_Vf'§'EiVi'is ('9) Ltd
" _Hav':i__h'g Regd. Offi'C'ev----A--t':'
.NO,_.1S, 13? Main,
_Ram'moa'o.giiera"o'Road,
;3.a mpa n'g.i"r"a_rr'.» . Nag a r,
Bangalore 560 027.
",_And Fa«;:_f_'ory at:
if' "LA55" ' M .
_' PM/'sorre--Naa1jar1gud Road
" Thanwdavapura W 571 325
-Represented by Pradeep Kumar
Agarwaf. ...RESPONDEi\JT
(By Sri M.Y.Srinivasan, Advocate)
r/or
*>l§<*
This WA is filed under Section 96 of CPC ag.a'ins't--th.e»..
judgment and decree dated 27.10.2003 _.,rS__ass*ed-~--._
O.S.No.125/O2 on the file of the Prl. Civil 3ucl'g__e (Sr..Dn.r)-__'
and CM, Mandya, clecreeing the suit;'fiie--d:yb'y. =the__ V
respondent herein for recovery of money, g_
This RFA coming on forg,Hearing:’t.hzis dg’y..’:.’the«.
deiivered the following:« V _
….._…_….._………-i U D G
Aggrieved by the ‘_»__decree dated
27.10.2003 pass’e<_:l_'-byithe'.i?irinci'i:§a_i~.Civil judge (Sr. Dn.)
and CJM, Mia4nd_i=,}'a_ii"n'Ki).:S';~i\i.o,u12Si/ZQG2ldecreeing the suit of
the galavilnltlitf,' haslhhied the present appeal.
2. vvould be referred to as per their
w ra n’S<~§'«i n 1 tihegtriai '' CO.Ei__i'_§.,v
3.; ‘ if-:Tlfi=.eu’vplaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of a
sum’ Qf:V.Rs.4’2,33,244/- along interest at 2% per month.
it The«..defendant, even though represented by Counsel failed
to file his written statement. Inspite “of giving sufficient
“time the written statement was not filed. Hence, the Court
below passed the impugned judgment and decree,
rim
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff based on the plaint
averments. Hence the present appeai by the defendant.
4. Sri’.Mohan, the learned Counsel appearingtfor
the appellant contends that the impugned jiJdgrnent:.f”an”du
decree is bad in law and iiable to be set ”
contends that due to bonafide reasons.’ wvlasfnot at’, if
posdjon to fHe the vvntten statenaéntd tin iegeipi or iggrg
suit summons, he was diligent-eénough “to.__en9fag:e”a”coiunsel
to contest the matter. H.oweve-r–,– thereafter d’uve..to°medical
set backs he was not in a’lpoisi’tioVnj:o Vcofntwactwhis counsel or
appear7.__be.foreV”-the”‘:’Co’urt’}’~–.__ -In support whereof various
medical certificates”.ai’e:””-produced before this Court to
substgantiiate th’e,_V_said claim. Hetherefore contends that
the defendant and the non–fEling of the
iii-J.rl’tt_en l’st’a_tern.le’ri”t was beyond the control of the appeilant
and””hen~–.ce “the same requires to be considered favourably
‘V_m¢msC&uL
Srisrinvasan, the learned Counsel appearing
for the respondent–plaintiff contends that the defendant
rt”
M4-
has deliberateiy not attended the Court. The trial Court
has passed a just and reasonabie order. He further
submits that the suit was fiied as far as back in tb.e:’~y’eavr
2002 and the amount due to the plaintiff
been paid by the defendant.
6. Heard counsels.
7. The primary cointentionA”‘of ithe,AAa._p’p»e.i!ant’s = L’
. at
counsel is based on iii;__health$.y_…_iioi._su–.pstant’iat.ey the iilness
of the appeliant, medicat’certi_fiVeai.te.s’Vii,hayebeen produced
to ShO’i:_’V that”h’e ur’i?dVer’–_we.nt operations on more than two
occasions, ” yHe..V_’w.a:; “hospitaiised consistently as
evidenced the m.edicai certificates. Under these
“”~cyirc’ur*nsifances hevvtttyyas unabie to present his written
appear before the Court below. The
reAas_ons.giyi’e.niby the appeiiant are just and reasonabie.
On merits the contention of the appellant is
__that he is not liable to pay any amount. He contends that
there is evidence and material to show that the entire
rt”
amount due has already been paid to the piaintiff and if
given an opportunity he would establish his case before
the trial Court. In view of the submission made,,..g1i3éI’rI} of.
the considered view that the reasons for
written statement and the non–appear_a~n–:.éi~before
Court below is just and bonafideyi. T.he}’e4′–uuigs{4.no— d’ei:iib_er.ate
intention on the part offthe a’ppe’iianta.”t’o’_taiiioici
proceedings. Hence, I ‘am ofinthie consi’d’er:ed that the
appeliaht be given aia.._._.’a~deciuate.i”Q..p~p.,o’rtiunity to make out
his case. ‘
._ – the iearned Counsel appearing
for theiapipelgiaint his ciient is willing to pay
cogsts” for the”‘t~ir_ne’ spent by the respondents as well as the
‘precio1us_t.i:rri–e being lost by this Court. He further contends
i”‘._thatiA be imposed in order to do substantiai
jus’tice.’:tov”both the parties. He further submits that his
3 iic.5ientV”‘has recovered and that he is in a medicaliy fit
“twcoiidition and that no adjournment will be tak€ 2im.
‘0
-5-
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is
allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.10.2003
passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and’r’,:h’C»J.M,
Mandya in O.S.No.125/2002 is set aside. The~«~~i–“riaVtter.j’
remitted back to the trial Court for fresh,’V_”_:dis’p»o:sa_i iii!
accordance with law. The appellant
costs of a sum of Rs.15,00Q;’-__ to the”‘respouVnden:tsA’ arid
sum of Rs.15,000/~ shall be pa’ii’d.:_a’s costs’-viri’tti*.V’:th.eiE registry
of this Court. The payrn’e_nt :§ha:_ll: within a period
of four weeks from the__da_tel’i”_of:» copy of this
order. Furthe’r”tll;je apipeliarit is A:c_V;ra’n.teci a period of four
weeks to filethis–wr’i<ttge'n._:st.atei<nent before the trial Court.
On suchlfiiingp, tllieéltrial :_C"o_u'i*t".shall hear and dispose off the
suit the end. oltfiecemher 2010.
it to return the records forthwith.
Séli
§~i;,§g9
‘ Wms*