SKANDA SAI MARKETING vs KONDANDAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2020 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SKANDA SAI MARKETING
ST
#20/U, 1 FLOOR,
RD
3 CROSS, MRR LANE
SJP ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560 002
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT. VANI VIJAY
W/O K.C. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KONDANDAPPA
PROP. SRI VENKATESHWARA
DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
KARANJIKATTE ROAD,
KOLAR 563101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. SOORAPPA,
SRI. C.S. VINOD,
SRI. G.V. SURESH, ADVOCATES)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2019
PASSED IN OS.NO.1016/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 29.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2019
passed by the learned LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), in O.S. No. 1016/2017,
whereby the Trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for
recovery of money, and proceeded to decree an unpleaded
claim of the defendant directing the plaintiff to refund an
alleged excess amount of Rs.4,41,844/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their respective ranking before the Trial
Court. Appellant is the plaintiff-firm and respondent is the
defendant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a
firm dealing in PVC pipes and fittings, instituted the suit for
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,156/- against the defendant. It
is the case of the plaintiff that defendant was a regular
customer who purchased goods worth Rs.16,17,156/- under
- 3 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
16 different invoices (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16) and maintained a
running account. After giving due credit for payments made,
return of defective goods worth Rs.80,000/-, and tempo
charges of Rs.67,000/-, the plaintiff claimed an outstanding
balance of Rs.2,58,156/-.
4. In response, the defendant appeared and filed a
written statement denying the suit claim and asserting that
no running account was maintained. The defendant
contended that he had made excess payments amounting to
Rs.20,72,000/- as against the total invoice value of
Rs.16,17,156/-, and claimed that the plaintiff was liable to
refund an excess sum of Rs.4,74,844/-. As urged in the
appeal grounds, the defendant did not file any formal
counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A of C.P.C., paid no
court fee, and no issue was framed by the Trial Court
regarding the alleged excess payment.
5. During the trial, the proprietor of the plaintiff-firm was
examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-
22. The defendant did not adduce any oral evidence on his
behalf, though account statements pertaining to Sri
- 4 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
Venkateswara Drip Irrigation System were marked as Ex.D-
1 during the cross-examination of P.W.1.
6. The Trial Court, upon evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff failed to
establish a running account or any outstanding balance, and
accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of
money. However, despite explicitly noting that there was no
formal counter-claim, no court fee paid, and no issue
framed, the Trial Court proceeded to grant a decree in
favour of the defendant, directing the plaintiff to refund an
excess amount of Rs.4,41,844/- within 30 days, subject to
the defendant paying court fee subsequently. Aggrieved by
the judgment and decree, plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/defendant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the Trial Court committed a grave error of
law in granting a money decree in favour of the defendant in
the complete absence of a formal counter-claim under Order
VIII Rule 6-A of the C.P.C., without payment of mandatory
- 5 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
court fee, and without framing any issue in that regard. It
was submitted that once the plaintiff's suit was dismissed for
want of proof regarding the balance due, the Trial Court
would not have turned into a recovery forum and without a
properly constituted counter-claim allowed the claim of the
defendant. Further, he contended that the plaintiff has
proved the transaction between the plaintiff firm and the
defendant and the amount due from the defendant by
placing sufficient documents. Despite that, the Trial Court
held that there was no such transaction between the plaintiff
and defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Accordingly he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned judgment, contending that the Trial
Court had meticulously calculated the payments made by
the defendants by placing reliance on Ex.D-1 and the
admissions of P.W.1, and rightly exercised its power to grant
justice to prevent unjust enrichment. He further submitted
that, in pursuance of the decree, the defendant has also paid
the court fee. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
- 6 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
10. Upon evaluation of the rival submissions, the
grounds urged in the appeal memo, and the materials on
record, following points arise for consideration
1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of
money?
2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in
allowing the unpleaded claim of the defendant for
refund of excess amount of Rs.4,41,844/-, in the
absence of a formal counter-claim, court fee, and
issues, particularly in the backdrop of answering
Issue No.1 in the Nagative?
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
findings recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court
dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon holding that the plaintiff
failed to prove the exact balance due under a running
account.
12. On careful perusal of the cross examination of PW-
1, she has categorically admitted that, other than the
invoices at Ex.P-1 to P-16 no other invoices are pending for
payment. Further she admitted the account statement at
Ex.D1. During her cross examination she also deposed that
she doesn't remember when exactly she has taken defective
- 7 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
goods worth of Rs.80,000/- from the defendant and after
taking back the defective goods, she has not supplied goods
to the defendant. The plaintiff also failed to produce the
delivery notes corresponding to invoices at Ex.P1 to P-16.
On perusal of the same, under the said invoices the total
amount reflects Rs.16,17,156/-. According to plaintiff, she
received Rs.10,92,000/- from defendant as per Ex.D1(a) to
(j) and Ex.P17. However in the plaint the plaintiff failed to
show Rs.7,00,000/- received by her from defendant under
Ex.D1(c) to (i) and Ex.P17. As such her claim for balance
amount of Rs.2,58,156/- is untenable and rightly rejected by
the Trial Court. Accordingly the point No.1 is answered
affirmative in favour of the defendant.
13. So far as point No.2 is concerned, the Trial Court
explicitly observed in paragraphs 48 and 49 of its judgment
that the defendant had not filed any specific counter-claim,
that no issue was framed in that regard, and that no court
fee was paid by the defendant. Despite noting these
fundamental procedural and substantive bars which
ordinarily preclude a court from granting any affirmative
monetary relief—the Trial Court proceeded to decree the
defendant's claim for refund of Rs.4,41,844/- by merely
- 8 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
observing that the other side had not produced citations
barring such a course and that the defendant offered to pay
court fee subsequently.
14. It is a settled principle of civil jurisprudence that a
defendant can seek a monetary decree or set-off against the
plaintiff only by way of a written statement containing a
specific counter-claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the
C.P.C., upon which court fee must be paid at the time of
institution or as directed, and issues must be framed to
enable parties to lead evidence. A court cannot convert a
defense into an active decree for recovery of money in
favour of a defendant who has neither filed a counter-claim
nor paid the mandatory court fee. Permitting a defendant to
secure a decree based on defensive pleadings alone
bypasses the mandatory provisions of the Court Fees Act
and prejudices the plaintiff without a trial on a counter-
claim. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court in
granting a decree in favour of the defendant without
pleadings, issues, or court fee is legally unsustainable,
contrary to the canons of civil procedure.
- 9 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
15. Further on perusal of the judgment, the Trial Court
has framed Issue No.1 as under
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
defendant is regular customer with plaintiff and
defendant used to purchase PVC pipes and fittings
under different invoices and also maintain running
account as alleged in the plaint?"
Upon examination of the pleadings and evidences the
Trial Court answered the above issue in negative. Thus it is
clear that the Trial Court concluded that the defendant didn't
use to purchase PVC pipes and fittings under different
invoices and also maintaining a running account. However,
the Trial Court proceeded to grant unclaimed relief in favour
of the defendant by placing reliance at EX.P17, P18,
Ex.D1(e) and D1(g) which are the statements and invoices
pertaining to the transaction between the plaintiff and
defendant. Hence, the relief granted to the defendant is
contrary to the findings on Issue No.1.
16. Therefore, that part of the Trial Court's judgment
and decree directing the plaintiff to refund the excess
amount of Rs.4,41,844/- to the defendant cannot be
- 10 -
RFA No. 367 of 2020
sustained in law and warrants interference by this Court.
Accordingly point No.2 is answered in negative.
17. The appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence
the following:
ORDER
1. The Regular First Appeal filed by the Appellant /
Plaintiff is hereby allowed in part .
2. The Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2019 passed in
O.S. No. 1016/2017 by the LXVI Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), so far as it
regards the direction to the plaintiff to refund excess
amount of Rs.4,41,384/- to the defendant is hereby
set aside by affirming rest of the judgment.
3. The Court fee, if any, paid by the defendant shall be
refunded.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS/V