Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1992 (KAR)

Malini Reddy v. H M Malleshappa

2025-12-18

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Anupam Agarwal for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendants in SC No. 1026/2020 are the revision petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said case, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- within one month from the date of decree with interest @ 9.5% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants by contending that plaintiff is in business of providing security services and as per request of the defendants, security services were provided to the premises at Ajay Plaza from June 2015. 4. It is further contended that there was delay in payment of security charges and defendants were irregular. Despite repeated demands, defendants did not regularize the payment of service charges. In the month of September 2009, defendants promised that they will clear all the pending dues after selling the premises. But they failed to do so. 5. It is also contented that a legal notice was issued on 18.05.2020 demanding the service charges and defendants requested to provide accounts statement to clear the dues. As such, a detailed statement of accounts showing the bills and receipts was sent to the defendants with a letter on 01.06.2020. 6. Thereafter, yet another notice was issued on 03.10.2020, calling upon the defendants to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,62,000/-. But there was no compliance to the callings of the said notice nor there was any reply. Therefore, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-. 7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the court, filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. 8. The first defendant further contended that he was regular in payment of the security services and plaintiff issued notice to him for withdrawal of the security services on 26.08.2019 effective from 01.09.2019, which shows that there was no services which were provided by the plaintiff to defendants on and from 01.09.2019 and with avariciousness, a notice dated 18.05.2020, demanding the payment of security services from September 2019 to May 2020 was made, which is incorrect and sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. Learned trial judge directed the parties to place their evidence. 10. 9. Learned trial judge directed the parties to place their evidence. 10. Therefore, on behalf of the plaintiff, Malleshappa got examined as PW1 and Sri. Mohan as a witness as PW2. 11. On behalf of the plaintiff, 11 documentary evidences were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exs. P1 to P11, comprising of letter, RPAD acknowledgments, letter with Account statement, office copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgments, attendance registers from December 2019 to May 2020. 12. As against the material evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, Ravi Reddy - 2 nd defendant got examined as DW1. He placed on record, five documentary evidences which were exhibited and marked as Exs. D1 to D5, comprising of notice with three receipts dated 24.08.2019, copy of the notice dated 18.05.2020, accounts statement summary, copies of two possession notices, copy of notice dated 13.05.2019. 13. Learned trial judge, on conclusion of recording of evidence, heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, inter alia, holding in paras 14 and 15 as under: “14. The plaintiff in order to prove that he was providing security to building, he has examined PW.2 by name Sri.Mohan, who was security guard at the premises of defendants. He has deposed that he was working as a security guard in defendants' property from 01.12.2019 to 31.05.2020. Even in his cross examination, he has deposed that he worked as security guard upto May 2020. The contention of defendant is that the plaintiff written a letter as per Ex.D.1 by stating that they will withdraw security services from 1st September 2019, as such they have not providing security to building from that date. On perusal of Ex.D.1 letter sent by plaintiff, wherein it is written that they have decided to withdraw services from 1st September 2019 and requested to make necessary arrangements for taking over charges on 1st September 2019 and in Ex.D.1 it is mentioned that there was due of Rs.94,000/- from May 2019 to August 2019. The defendant also produced Vouchers raised by the plaintiff company. Now on the basis of Ex.D.1 Letter, the defendant contending that from 1st September 2019, the plaintiff not provided security to their building. The defendant also produced Vouchers raised by the plaintiff company. Now on the basis of Ex.D.1 Letter, the defendant contending that from 1st September 2019, the plaintiff not provided security to their building. Again the plaintiff issued a letter to defendants dated: 18.05.2020, wherein also they have mentioned that they will withdraw security services to building w.e.f 31st May 2020 and in the said letter they have show due of Rs.1,82,500/-. So, on perusal of Ex.D.1 & 2, the plaintiff was writing a letter to defendants to clear the dues and also cautioned the defendant that they will withdraw the services.DW.1 in his cross examination deposed that he has not issued any reply notice to letter sent by plaintiff. The plaintiff produced Ex.P.3 Letter issued by defendant No.2 to plaintiff, wherein he has stated that they have paid entire due amount and their last payment cheque was issued on 11th May 2020 bearing Cheque No.259509 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jayanagar. Further in said letter it is written that services of plaintiff not required hence forth. On perusal of Ex.P.3, it was written on 30th May 2020 and he has issued a letter with reply to the letter dated: 18.05.2020 written by plaintiff. The defendant not produced any documents to show that he has asked the plaintiff to stop the security services earlier to this letter, but only Ex.P.3 reveals that he has asked the plaintiff to stop security services. The defendant not denied Ex.P.3 letter dated: 30.05.2020. Further DW.1 in his cross examination deposed that as the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited taken over the possession they need not to say the plaintiff to stop the security services. It is the contention of plaintiff that unless specific instructions from the defendants he cannot stop the security services provided to building as it is in his possession. On meticulous perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, the defendants not produced any documents to show that they have asked to stop the security services provided to their building. The defendants also not placed any materials before the court to establish that after taken over possession of building by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the plaintiff not providing security services. The defendants also not placed any materials before the court to establish that after taken over possession of building by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the plaintiff not providing security services. In order to show the plaintiff providing security services, the plaintiff examined security guard, who was working at the said building and also they have produced attendance register before the court. So, on perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, it clearly establishes that the plaintiff was providing security services to defendants' building till the date of issuing of Ex.P.3 Letter dated: 30.05.2020 by defendant No.2. 15. The defendants produced Ex.D.3 to show that they have cleared entire balance amount. On perusal of Ex.D.3 the payments were made through cheque. Except producing Ex.D.3 one statement before the court, the defendants have not produced Bank statement and any other documents to substantiate Ex.D.3 to show that they have paid full and final settlement. As per Ex.D.3, the defendant was paying Rs.23,500/- per month to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in Ex.P.1 he has stated that the defendant was not paying Rs.23,500/-, but he was only paying Rs.20,000/- and there was due from November 2019 to May 2020. When the plaintiff disputed that the defendants have not paid Rs.23,500/-, then what prevented the defendant to produce Bank statement to show that they have paid Rs.23,500/- every month to plaintiff. The defendant nothing placed before the court to establish that they have paid Rs.23,500/- per month except producing one statement. So, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that he has provided security to building upto 31.05.2020 and plaintiff also proved that the defendants have not paid due amount of Rs.1,62,000/- to the plaintiff for the security services provided by plaintiff to defendants. The plaintiff is engaging in providing security services to needy persons by appointing persons and plaintiff has to pay salary every month to the security guards. If the defendant failed to pay the due amount to plaintiff company, then how plaintiff to pay salary to his employees. So, it is just and proper to direct the defendants to pay due amount to plaintiff.” 14. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the defendants who have filed the present revision petition on following grounds: “ 9. If the defendant failed to pay the due amount to plaintiff company, then how plaintiff to pay salary to his employees. So, it is just and proper to direct the defendants to pay due amount to plaintiff.” 14. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the defendants who have filed the present revision petition on following grounds: “ 9. At the outset it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order is not within the four corners of law and not sustainable in law. The order under challenge is not a speaking order as no proper reasons are assigned for arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioners shall pay the suit claim to a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- within one month from the date of decree and also pay simple interest @9.5 p.a., from the date of institution of the suit till complete realization is exorbitant in any manner. 10. The Court below grossly erred in not appreciating the Petitioners' contentions that the Respondent had issued a notice dated 26.08.2019 to Petitioners for withdrawal of the security services effective from 1st September 2019, which ought to imply that no services were rendered by the Respondent to the Petitioners after September 2019 and that the Respondent himself has withdrawn the services effective from 01st September 2019. 11. That the court below utterly failed to consider the fact that the Plaintiff/Respondent had futile to prove that he was providing security service to the Petitioners' building and that the Respondent has not produced any reliable documents to prove whether he was the service provider to the Petitioners' building and that the Petitioners have utilized their security services or not and that there were dues outstanding to be paid by Petitioners to Respondents or not. The alleged claim which ought to be the consideration for security services provided by Respondent and the same if accepted by the Petitioners or not itself is the dispute while the said disputed aspect itself is not properly distinguished and looked into. The impugned order is passed without considering the above circumstances, hence the order needs to be set aside. 12. That the court below has totally failed to appreciate Petitioners that the details of account transactions provided by the Respondent was not matched with the statement of accounts maintained in the books of the Petitioners. The impugned order is passed without considering the above circumstances, hence the order needs to be set aside. 12. That the court below has totally failed to appreciate Petitioners that the details of account transactions provided by the Respondent was not matched with the statement of accounts maintained in the books of the Petitioners. It is implied to be proved that there were no dues pending from the Petitioners side. Further, the fact that the Petitioners are not even in the possession of the said building from 08th August 2019, as the said building property was taken over by their lending bank; is not even taken in to consideration. Hence the impugned order is unlawful and hence deserves to be set aside. 13. The Court below erred in appreciating the contentions of the Petitioners that they were making regular and timely payments after September 2019 and that the Respondent himself has withdrawn the services effective from 01st September 2019. 14. The court below has failed to appreciate the documents produced by the Petitioners to establish the fact of the Lending Bank taking over the possession of the building in the month of May 2019 of the building. That the learned Trial Judge has erred in not appreciating the contention of the Petitioners that they have made payment through cheque bearing No. 259509, dated 11.05.2020 drawn on Punjab National Bank for the outstanding dues raised by the Respondent for the past service provided by the Respondent. 15. The Trial court has blindly allowed the claim of the Respondent without even calling for books of accounts to verify the calculation of the sum claimed at Rs.1,62,000/- by the Respondent. And the Plaintiff/Respondent did not even produce any agreement in case of default of payment and interest rates to be charged in case of defaults in payments. Further, the Respondent miserably failed to establish that he was providing security service to the Petitioners' building and about the outstanding payments for the given period of time. 16. That the Learned Judge at Trial court has gravely erred in proceeding with evidence of PW2, Sri. Mohan, a security guard who claimed to have provided security services to the Petitioners' building, his name was never mentioned in the suit before not even in the list of witnesses, though after lapse of three years the Plaintiff/Respondent adduced him as a witness for evidence. Mohan, a security guard who claimed to have provided security services to the Petitioners' building, his name was never mentioned in the suit before not even in the list of witnesses, though after lapse of three years the Plaintiff/Respondent adduced him as a witness for evidence. It is submitted that the Book of attendance produced by the Plaintiff/Respondent therein did not have any signature of the security guard. It is submitted that when the book of registry was kept for the attendance it must have been signed on the daily present on work but the document was produced before the trial court was not signed by any person. It is submitted that attendance book produced before the Trial court was after three years of filing the suit for outstanding payment alleged to be claimed for security services said to have provided to the Petitioners. 17. That the Learned Trial Judge has failed to understand that the witness of PW2 and the documents marked as Exhibit-P11 is a frivolous concocted documents and the same has been created just to mislead the court. 18. That the Trial court below lost sight of the fact that the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed dues from 01.12.2019 to 31.05.2020, though had not provided any security service for the said period which they have claimed and also has not produced any books of accounts/ statement to show outstanding payments for the same. 19. That the Trial Judge has not applied his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and has failed to appreciate the fact that the Plaintiff has produced Exhibit P11 which is a concocted and fabricated document produced after 3 years from filing of the suit after recalling the matter when it was posted for arguments only to mislead the court which was purely an afterthought on part of the Plaintiff. The Learned Trial Judge has erred in law by considering such document and based on the same has passed the impugned order. 20. The impugned order dated 15th April 2023 passed by the Learned Trial Judge is perverse and bad in law as since the vital documents produced by the Defendant /Petitioners are not considered before passing of the impugned order;, hence the impugned order ought to be set aside. 21. 20. The impugned order dated 15th April 2023 passed by the Learned Trial Judge is perverse and bad in law as since the vital documents produced by the Defendant /Petitioners are not considered before passing of the impugned order;, hence the impugned order ought to be set aside. 21. The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15th April 2023 is nothing but pure miscarriage of justice and the Learned Trial Judge has failed miserably to apply his judicial mind while passing the said impugned order.” 15. Sri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, re-iterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that as could be seen from the admitted document placed on record by the plaintiff himself, there was no security services provided on and from 01.09.2019 and therefore, claim by the plaintiff for service charges @ Rs.23,500/- from September 2019 to May 2020 itself is incorrect and sought for admitting the revision petition. 16. Learned Counsel for petitioner would further contend that amounts claimed in the plaint are incorrect as could be seen from the statement that has been sent by the plaintiff which is annexed to Ex. D2. Therefore, the decreeing of the suit has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 17. Counsel for respondent absent today. Therefore, in the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, before filing the suit as per Ex. D1, there was a claim on 26.08.2019 in a sum of Rs.94,000/-. The said notice is not replied by the defendants. Likewise, when there was a demand as to the payment of the pending arrears with regard to the service charges vide Ex.D2, dated 18.05.2020, there was a clarification that was sought for sending the accounts. Along with Ex. D2, details of the bills pending were furnished to the defendants. As could be seen from the said statement, there was a due in a sum of Rs.1,82,500/-. Further, along with said letter, a statement was furnished to establish that the pending arrears were paid as per claim in Ex.D2. The statement is placed on record by the accused vide Ex.D3. 19. As could be seen from the said statement, there was a due in a sum of Rs.1,82,500/-. Further, along with said letter, a statement was furnished to establish that the pending arrears were paid as per claim in Ex.D2. The statement is placed on record by the accused vide Ex.D3. 19. Admittedly, in ExD3 except signature of DW1 no further particulars are forthcoming as to when those amounts were paid and proof thereof. 20. Pertinently in the case on hand, defendants, taking the service of the plaintiff for security personnel is not in dispute. There were some financial difficulties that was faced by the defendants and therefore the financier has taken steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 and possession of the building was taken over by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. 21. It is the specific contention of the defendants that since the possession was taken over by the said company, defendants were not obliged to pay the service charges thereafter. However, taking over of the building in occupation by the defendants by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited is not brought to the notice of the plaintiff. What is available on record is the notice dated 26.08.2019 placed on record by the defendant himself vide Ex. D1. As could be seen from the said letter itself, there was a demand in a sum of Rs.94,000/-. The demand made in Ex. D1 is upto the month of August 2019, whereas the document that is placed on record by Exhibit D3 by the defendant shows that the payment is made upto June 2019 alone. As already pointed out, except mentioning the cheque numbers and payment made, an amount in a sum of Rs.4,23,000/-, there is no other proof placed on record to establish that the payment actually reached the plaintiff. In other words, Ex. D3 does not act as a proof of payment of Rs.4,23,000/- to the plaintiff. But at the most it is a self-serving document placed on record by the defendants. No supporting documents like bank passbook, statement of accounts maintained in the bank, establishing the encashment of the cheques mentioned and whether a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- has reached the plaintiff or not. 22. Further, as could be seen from Ex. D1, demand was upto August 2019 and payment under Ex. D3 is only upto June 2019. No supporting documents like bank passbook, statement of accounts maintained in the bank, establishing the encashment of the cheques mentioned and whether a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- has reached the plaintiff or not. 22. Further, as could be seen from Ex. D1, demand was upto August 2019 and payment under Ex. D3 is only upto June 2019. The question therefore now comes before the Court to be decided is, whether service charges as is claimed in the plaint, needs to be paid, as, according to defendants, on and from the date of taking possession by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, there was no security services at all. 23. Therefore defendants are not liable to pay the service charges. But, no material evidence is placed on record in this regard. No document is also placed on record that actual physical possession was taken over and the services of plaintiff was terminated. 24. Further again, no witness is examined from the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited to establish that they instructed the plaintiff not to provide the security services on and from the day they took possession of the property. 25. Whether at all, the said possession was symbolic or actual physical possession and contract got terminated after notice to the plaintiff, are all matters which were required to be established by the defendants and no proof is forthcoming on the record. 26. On the contrary Ex. P11 is the attendance certificate placed on record by the plaintiff for the months of December 2019, January 2020, February 2020, March2020, April 2020 and May 2020. There is no cross examination on Ex. P11 by the defendants to PW1. 27. Why would the plaintiff make a claim when there was no security services at all provided to the defendants’ building as per Ex.P11, is a question that remains unanswered. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, none of the legal notices issued by the plaintiff is replied by the defendants. 28. Under such circumstances, when the plaintiff has established that he has provided the security services upto May 2020, the suit claim is just and proper. If the argument of the defendants is to be accepted that they have cleared all the dues, as per Ex. D3 upto June 2019, plaintiff would have made a claim from 01.07.2019 to 01.05.2020. On the contrary, the plaint claim is made from September 2019 to May 2020. If the argument of the defendants is to be accepted that they have cleared all the dues, as per Ex. D3 upto June 2019, plaintiff would have made a claim from 01.07.2019 to 01.05.2020. On the contrary, the plaint claim is made from September 2019 to May 2020. Therefore, honesty in making a claim on the part of the plaintiff cannot be doubted. Further the claim of the plaintiff is supported by documentary evidence, whereas the defence taken by the defendants is only the oral testimony and self-serving document – Ex. D3. 29. These aspects of the matter has been taken note of by the learned trial judge in a cumulative manner while decreeing the suit. It is also pertinent to note that, in the cross-examination of DW1, there was a specific question that the defendant is liable to pay upto May 2020 the security charges, DW1 has answered that the security services were stopped on and from 08.05.2019 and thereafter the security services was rendered by the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. There is no claim by the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited for having provided the security services. 30. Thus, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff which is assailed in the case on hand. Hence, following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent under due identification. (iii) Balance amount to be paid within four weeks from today.