IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD ON THE l8 DAY O.F NOVEBER 2011 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO308/2003 BETWEEN: BHAWARLAL JAIN 5/0 MALLAJI JAIN AGE MAJOR, MAHAVEER NIVAS, DM. ROAD, HOSPET. (BY Sri G.I. GACHCHINMATH, Sri KIRAN S. JAVALI AND Sri LAXMINARAYANA, 1. SMT. JAYASHREE, W/O DHARMENDRA RAMPURIA AGE MAJOR, C/O MIS RAMPURIA INVESTMENT5, NO.18, KAPPAGAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY, 2. MR. LAXMIPATH, Sb SMERLAL RAMPURIA, AGE MAJOR, NO.143, DOUB LE ROAD, OPP. KSRTC BUS ND, BELLARY. RESPONDENTS (BY Sr I V.S.G UNJAL AND Sri, P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 R 1, READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21’12 2002 DASSED IN 0 S NO 85’99 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SRDN) AND JMFC, HOPSET, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMEff Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21/12/2002 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), and JMFC Hospet, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal seekinq complete decreetal of the suit. 2. The parties would be referred be referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of the sum of RsJ,45,655/ alono with costs and f’ttjre interest at the rate of 2 % per annum fro.m the date of suit till -Hcc L , ,, Rs.t,00,000’- sas paid th cugh heque dated 06 01,1)95 t t[ c iefendants ar d an ithcr sin of Rs 100.000 b cheqi. V d 2 02 19)5 t U defendants After dcdutng ‘urn t Rc 69,411 ao a with ,nttrest paid y the detenciants, a sum of Rs 1,45,655’- was claimed to be due to the plaintiff in terms of the scheme. The defendants tntered pperance and contested the suit Th case of the defendants is that even though a part of the amount Is due, a major portion of the amount has been returned. Reliance wac placed on Ex.D-3 wherein the defendants had asked the plaintiff to adjust the said amount towards tt’e ioan transactor: The trial Court on c’nsidering the case, came to tnt- onc-ud;c.r th,t a parjal amount cu to th iaint:ff a.a w;dirig, 1e reed the su: .0 L’fl. J L.I(,C’,, iLr. 4 ;t• t’c’... _I p... C..,s.1 O,tj cat’ 1 aiji jl{ 910 n ftjc. cc’ a’ hE. tE.’ 2 rr cot t, ti )Ot e iatr (1, - I. l C. VI I 4 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the trial court has committed an error In partly decreeing the suit. The entire suit requires to be decreed insofar as the plaintiff has established his case with regard to the amounts due to him. He contends that by virtue of Ex.D 3, defendants are claiming to adjust the amount whereas, in fact, there is no reply sent by the plaintiff to Ex.D-3. Hence, there has been no adjustment for the said amount. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants argued In support of the judgment and decree and contends that there Is no error committed by the trial court calling for interference. 6. On hearing the leaned counsel, I am of the view that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. The trial Court, on considering the case of the plaintIff specificaliy relied on the admitted situation. In para 9 of its judgment, the trial Court has JLr 5 noted the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- belonging to the defendants was readily available with the plaintiff as on 30/07/1996 and the plaintiff had also admitted that the said amount of Rs.1,92,000/- has been adjusted by him based on the letter by the defendants by virtue of the request by the defendants. There is a further admission that the request ietter by the defendants on 09/07/1996 which Is marked as Ex.D-3, is sufficient to prove the same. However, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no reply given by the plaintiff to EX.D-3. When the defendants have made a request for adjusting of the loan and no repiy has been furnished by the plaintiff, it is imminent that the request made by the defendants will stand. Non furnishing of a reply to Ex.D-3 cannot by itself be a ground to ciaim the entire amount. Therefore, I find no error committed by the trial Court in relying upon the admitted documentation on record by partiy decreeing the suit. 6 7. It is to be further seen that in Ex.D-3 the signature of the plaintiff Is found and the plaintiff admits that he has received Ex.D-3. Under these circumstances, only on the ground of non furnishing a reply to Ex.D-3 cannot be a ground to decree the suit of the plaintiff In its totality. 8. The counsel for the plaintiff contends that so far as the amount of Rs.1,92,000/- Is concerned, the same was with regard to the Lucky Benefit Scheme. However, the amount advanced Is a hand loan and that there is no nexus between the money advanced and the scheme. There is no material to establish that the transactions were wIth regard to the scheme concerned. Even otherwise, the defendants have written a letter seeking adjustment of the amount towards loan amount. There Is no reason as to why any Interference is called for by this Court on the well considered documentation as rightly considered by the trial Court. J4%r- I find no error calling for interference, Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ JUL• GE kmv