Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9450
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri. Lokesh C., J
SRI AMARNATH – Appellant
Versus
KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT. LTD. – Respondent
Regular First Appeal | O.S.No.2533/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Lokesh C.
For the Respondents: None
Legal notice is not mandatory before filing a money recovery suit; dismissal on this basis is erroneous.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Dismissal of suit for recovery of money due to failure to issue legal notice - The court held that a legal notice is not mandatory for claiming money, though it is recommended as it notifies intention to pursue legal action. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) The plaintiff established his case through evidence of payment and the defendants’ failure to repay, justifying the decree in his favor. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff lent a total of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants, who failed to repay the amount despite acknowledgment. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the erroneous ground of no legal notice.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.10,39,000/- with 6% interest.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit due to the absence of a legal notice.
Ratio Decidendi: Legal notice is not always a prerequisite for money recovery suits; the dismissal on this basis was erroneous.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the Trial Court's judgment is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the plaintiff lent money to the defendants who failed to repay. (Para 4) |
| 2. the court examined the necessity of legal notice prior to suit. (Para 6) |
| 3. the court found the dismissal of the suit erroneous. (Para 7) |
| 4. the appeal was allowed, and the decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 8) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri. Lokesh C., counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person.
An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 05.06.2018. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to the respondents is held sufficient vide order dated 12.10.2023.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranking and status before the Trial Court.
4. The plaint averments are these:
The plaintiff, Amarnath, is a Proprietor of FE Designs and owns a dealership of CYPE dealing in the business of Software. It is said that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are college mates and they were friends. After a long time, defendant No.3 met plaintiff at his office in November 2011 and requested a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest. The plaintiff arranged Rs.7,65,000/- and paid the said amount through online transfer i.e., Net Banking. The plaintiff paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the company account - defendant No.1 in two payments i.e., Rs.4,50,000/- on 22.03.2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.03.2012 and Rs.1,15,000/- to defendant No.2 in two payments i.e., Rs.65,000/- on 24.03.2012 and Rs.50,000/- on 26.03.2012. After receipt of the said amount, they acknowledged the same and sent a reply to the plaintiff through email and also undertook to pay the amount within three months with interest. Defendant No.3 did not pay the principal or the interest amount till August 2013. However, she made certain payments on different dates. After the said payments, she was still due Rs.10,39,000/- towards interest and principal. Despite several demands, the defendants did not come forward to pay the amount, and they postponed the payment on one pretext or the other pretext. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of money.
After service of the suit summons, the defendants did not appear before the Court. Hence, they were placed ex parte.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as exhibits. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2016 dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC.
5. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions.
(1) B. SRIKANTH VS. ERUKALA LAXMI SUVARNAMUKHI - 2006 (3) ALD 62 .
(2) JAY AMBE INDUSTRIES, PROPRIETOR SHRI DINESHKUMAR BAJRANGLAL SOMANI VS. GARNET SPECIALITY PAPER LTD - (2022) 01 GUJ CK 0013.
6. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit.
7. The facts are sufficiently said, and the same does not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the payment of money. The Trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit. The dismissal of the suit on this count is erroneous. The reason is apparent. A legal notice is not always mandatory before claiming or recovering money, it is a strong and often recommended first step. It provides formal notification of ones intention to pursue legal action if the money is not repaid. Furthermore, a demand notice is not always mandatory before filing a money suit. A demand notice can significantly strengthen the plaintiff's case. The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously dismissed the suit.
Ex.P.1 is the Statement Transaction of
