M/S NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs SRI A ANANDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1813 OF 2023 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT OF 1956, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT LEVEL 7,
NITESH TIME SQUARE, NO.8, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
NOW KNOWN AS:
M/S NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT OF 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.110, B WING, ANDREWS BUILDING,
LEVEL 1, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT OF 1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
LEVEL 7, NITESH TIMES SQUARE, NO.8,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
NOW KNOWN AS:
M/S SATCHMO HOLDINGS LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
Digitally
signed by N
UMA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
110, A WING, ANDREWS BUILDING,
LEVEL 1, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
1(a)
SRI. A ANANDA
S/O LATE VEMA REDDY
AGED 64 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,
ANANDA ENGINEERING WORKS,
NO.18, SCB ROAD, BENDRENAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560070.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S
SMT. A KRISHNAVENI
W/O LATE A. ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(b) SRI. A. KARTHIKEYA
S/O LATE A. ANANDA, AGED 33 YEARS
1(c). SRI. A. ABHINAND
S/O LATE A. ANANDA, AGED 31 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.1-20, AMALLABANDAKOTA VILLAGE,
BOORLAPALLI POST,
PEDDA THIPPASAMUDRAM TALUK,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 391.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KEMPE GOWDA C M, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2022
PASSED IN OS.NO.2165/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU AND ETC.,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The Regular First Appeal is filed by the
appellants/defendants calling in question the judgment
and decree dated 15.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.2165/2016
by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-3) (hereinafter referred to as the
'Trial Court' for short), whereby, the suit filed for recovery
of money is decreed directing the defendants to pay an
amount of Rs.4,38,370/- along with interest at the rate of
10% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy
reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of
money by pleading that the plaintiff has provided service
to the defendants-Company and also supplied materials
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
for construction purpose. As per pleadings in the plaint,
the plaintiff had supplied goods and services to the
defendants worth of Rs.13,17,476/- under the various
dates and bills. Out of the said bills amount, the
defendants paid a Rs.8,79,106/- to the plaintiff, but still
there is balance amount of Rs.4,38,370/- paid by the
defendants, but the defendants failed to pay the said
amount. Hence, the plaintiff has issued legal notice, but
defendants did not reply to said legal notice. Therefore,
the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money of
Rs.4,38,370/-.
4. The defendants appeared through an advocate
but have not filed written statement.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial
Court has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs made out a
ground that the defendants as per the work order
dated 05.06.2015 and 03.08.2015 placed orders
for Rs.4,52,959/- and Rs.10,26,825/- respectively
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
for fabrication work to supply and fixing chain link
and fixing chain gate and other works out of the
bill raised for Rs.13,17,476/-. The defendant paid
an amount of Rs.8,79,106/- and the defendants
are liable to pay Rs.4,38,370/-?
2. What order or Decree?"
6. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and produced
documentary evidences and got marked the same as
Exs.P.1 to 12. But on behalf of the defendants, there is no
oral and documentary evidence.
7. The trial Court has decreed the suit as above
stated with cost. The trial Court assigned the reasons that
the plaintiff has proved the case by producing evidence of
tax invoices, bank pass book, cash / credit bills and copy
of legal notice issued to the defendants. Therefore, by all
these evidence, the plaintiff has proved that the
defendants owes an amount of Rs.4,38,370/- to the
plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court has considered the tax
invoices and held that the plaintiff has proved the case.
Accordingly, decreed the suit.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/
defendants have filed this appeal by raising various
grounds and learned counsel for the appellants/defendants
submitted that the defendants are not liable to pay any
balance to the plaintiffs and the defendants have paid
entire amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no
balance amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Further submitted that out of four credit/cash bills, one
cash bill / credit bill dated 01.10.2015 contains signature
of the defendants, the other cash bills do not contain
signatures. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that he
has produced services and supplied goods to the
defendants except the cash bill dated 01.10.2015 for
Rs.9,15,622/-. Therefore, submitted that the other four
cash bills / credit bills do not contain the signatures of the
receiver of the goods. Therefore, from those bills, the
plaintiff has failed to prove his pleading in the plaint.
However, the trial court failed to consider this aspect that
the bills marked as Exhibits P-7, P-8, and P-10 do not
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
contain any signatures and erroneously held that the
defendants are liable to pay the balance amount.
Therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay the
amounts claimed under Exhibits P-7, P-8, and P-10.
Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff has
rendered services and supplied the goods to the
defendants for construction activities and according to
these bills as per Exs.P.7, 8 and 10 and just because
Exs.P7, 8 and 10 do not contain signature of the
defendants that does not mean that there is no
transaction. When the defendants owes balance amount to
the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice, but
the defendants have not replied to the said legal notice
and also the defendants have not contested the case.
Therefore, this silence on the part of the defendants
speaks itself that the defendants are liable to pay the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
balance amount. Therefore, considering these aspects, the
trial Court has decreed the suit which needs no
interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Upon considering the arguments from both
sides, the following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, plaintiff proves that the
defendants are liable to pay an amount of
Rs.4,38,370/- as balance amount?
2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, the defendants prove that
the defendants are not liable to pay any balance
amount to the plaintiff?
11. It is the simple case of the plaintiffs that the
plaintiff has provided services and supplied the goods to
the defendants worth of Rs.13,17,476/- on various dates
by raising various invoices. It is the case of the plaintiffs
that the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.8,79,106/-
and the defendants still have to pay balance amount of
Rs.4,38,370/-. For claiming this, the plaintiff has issued
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
legal notice as per Ex.P.11 on 16.12.2015 to the
defendants but the defendants have not replied to the said
legal notice. The defendants have first opportunity to reply
to the legal notice by saying that defendants are not liable
to pay any balance amount but the defendants failed to do
so. The defendants remained kept silence over the claim of
the plaintiffs. When the plaintiff has issued a legal notice
to the defendants, if the defendants defense is bonafide
one then, the defendants would have issued a reply notice,
but has not replied. This would be one of probability and
circumstances that the defendants are liable to pay the
balance amount.
12. Even after the filing of suit, the defendants
received the summons from the Court and also engaged
an advocate, but have not filed a written statement
denying the pleadings of the plaint and have also failed to
lead evidence. This conduct of silence by the defendants
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
probabilises that the defendants would not have had any
valid defense against the plaintiffs.
13. The silence on the part of the defendants on
these two events as above discussed, could lead to draw
inference that the plaintiff has more probability to the
defendants. The conduct of silence in this regard by the
defendants is relevant as per Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, in proving the case of the plaintiffs. If
the defendants have replied to the legal notice and
contested the case, then the defendants would have been
more probable to the plaintiff in proving his defense to the
plaint. But the defendants kept silence over his defense.
Therefore, the plaintiff has proved his case by producing
Exs.P.7 to 10 – cash bills / credit bills. Just because
Exs.P7, 8 and 10 do not contain signatures of the
defendants that does not mean that the plaintiff has not
proved his claim. The defendant had earliest opportunities
on two times viz., when the plaintiff has issued legal notice
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
to the defendants and when the defendants received suit
summons but on these two occasions, the defendants
remained silent. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved the
case by producing cash bills / credit bills - Exs.P.7, 8 and
also Exs.P.3 to 5. Therefore, the plaintiff’s case is not
merely on the basis of the pleadings but the pleadings
made by the plaintiff are supported by documentary
evidence as above discussed. Therefore, the plaintiff has
proved his case. Hence, the trial Court is correct in
decreeing the suit. Therefore, my answer to point No.1 in
the affirmative and point No.2 is in the negative.
14. During the course of the arguments in the
appeal, learned counsel submitted that when the plaintiff
has filed a Execution petition, the defendants have
deposited an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in Executing Court
and learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has not
disputed this fact of Rs.4,00,000/- in Executing Court.
Therefore, the remaining balance amount would be
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
Rs.38,370/-. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court is required to be modified to the effect
that the appellants/defendants shall pay an amount of
Rs.38,370/- to the plaintiff along with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of suit till the realization. To this
extent, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
is modified. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular First Appeal is allowed-in
part with cost.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree
dated 15.07.2022, passed by the XV
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
(CCH-3), Bengaluru, in
O.S.No.2165/2016, is modified to the
extent that the defendants shall pay
Rs.38,370/-along with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of suit till
realization within a period of 10 weeks
from today.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48715
RFA No. 1813 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010489202023
(iii) The cost incurred in the suit shall be
payable by the defendants to the
plaintiff.
(iv) The plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw
Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the
defendants in the Executing Court.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
rv
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15