"~..._..'5Jinoban.agar, Shfitgoga City-- 577 201.
- 1-
IR' T!-IE HIGH COURT OF' KARHATAILA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 18*'-5 DAY OF DECEMBER. 2008
BEFORE
THE HQNBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI 3 Q
c.g,g.ug.o,§3ggoos
BETWEEN:
M/S Malnad Tyres, V
A registered Partnership Firxza,
Garden Area, Shjmoga,
Reptd. by its Parlner,
S11' V.K.C'rov.im1a;u Nair,
S/0 Kallappan Nair.
Aged about 61 years,
R/0 Sharavathinagar, I
Shimoga-577 201. ' ' '
_ _' _ ' .,..PETI'I'I()NER
Sn' R.Dival-:21",
S/0 'F.Ram_:=:ppa,
Agcd 41
FOI'€'€£It Cfkzntractor, A
Rio Fm": Raga,
(RMC Ya:-id: Rowiiw
1 33* ("",zn_ri$:s,A «P¥'t;hi1.z_ _ Nijaya,
RESPONDENT
x , {By Sri.Girish Kodgi as K.Van.i, Advs.) .
This C.R.P. is mad UIS 13 of the Karnataka sman Causes
'VT§Z2)i1.*ft:s.--TAct against the judgment am} order dated 18.6.2007
in SC No.48/2004 on the fik: of the H Add}. Civil Judge
"-- (S'1'.'Dn.), Shivamogga, dismissing the suit for recovery of money.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This is p’Iaintifi’s revision petition against the judgment
am! dccxtc in SC No.48/2004 dated 18.6%’? on the tile of 1}
Add}. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Shiznoga.
2. Plaintifl has sought for recovery of Rs.22.730l – ._
allcgisg that, plainfifi is a xtgistcred partnership firm ‘
business of retrcading of tyms, selling of. ttstissf
The defendant is a transporter, who p1i1fchasad,’ ” .: «fi~z’o’~ if
Rs.14,000/- fmm the p}aintifl’ on he %
this regard, a bill was issued Hto the dsfsfidagt peéymcnt
was subject to 24% ixxtcrcst. had issued
a cheque drawn on State H of the
said cheque’;..__ it: and plaintflf has initiated
criminal pmeeeeenge 133 of the Negotiable
Irgsfiumenigs Act.
and écnicd the purchase of two
L ‘ the claim’ of the plaintifl’ including cicnial
iegal pmcsegfifigs under Section 138 of blcgofiablc
‘: Act.
Before the Trial Court. on bchaif of the p1a:i;atifl’ one
Nair was mcamined as PW1. Defendant himscif got
as DWI. Exs.F’1 to 7 were marked in the evidence of
PW}. No documents were produced bv the defendant.
5. Trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that, there
is over at Ex.P’4 by striking some name and vzrifing the
name of defendant over the same and disbelieving Ex.P5~ ledger
book observed that, no documents are produced by the
to prove the transaction.
6. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel the” t
plai11tifi’ submitted that, the defendant T:
in the cmss-examination and it is cigar document age-zegtaxiis
the issue of cheque. He submitted are
pending in cc No.9038/’2{)(§4..¢_on $1: 11 Atidt JMFC,
Shimoga, in respect of the very satee
7. The the defendant had
issued cheqtie h the transaction and the
defexidanffs’ is total denial of transaction,
isV_’:L’jt1eE :e:i.’p1a1t2tfie11…..by the defendant as to in what
the was issued. No doubt the original cheque
the Trial Court, Ex.P4 credit bili,
and Form ‘C: and Form ‘A’ are produced
é the Court, the Trial Court without looking into these
also without consflering the criminal proceedm gs
‘ . V t against the defendant in respect of the alleged
has dismissed the suit, in my opinion, the matter
requires reconsideration.
2%?
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The
judgment and decree passed by the I! Add}. Civil Judge (Sr.{)_;1.),
shivamogga. dated. 18.6.2007 is set aside. Matter is
the Trial Court for flesh disposal after nofioc to the de£:%§i&§i.§t;%A~— _
*AP/__