Sri.S.K.Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner and

Smt.Deepashree,

learned

counsel

on

behalf

of

Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, for respondent have appeared in

person.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

3.

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

M/s.Shreya Printers being the Plaintiff initiated

action

against

M/s.Bhatkal

Agricultural

and

Rural

Development Co-Operative Bank LTD., for recovery of

money for a sum of Rs.14,310/- (Rupees Fourteen

Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) at the rate of 12%

p.a., contending that it is a printing press running through

its partners and the defendant had placed orders for

printing ten thousand deposit certificates vide tax

invoice/credit bill No.5859 dated:02.10.2010 which was

3

sent

to

the

Bank

vide

Delivery

Note

No.632,

dated:04.10.2010.

It is stated that on account of the demand made by

the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty thousand only) through its cheque

dated:18.10.2020 bearing No.447678 which has been

enchased by the plaintiff. Despite the demand and

reminder letters, the balance amount of Rs.14,310/-

(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only)

was unpaid. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a

legal notice and the same was accepted by the defendant.

It is averred that even after the acceptance of

notice, the balance amount was unpaid by the defendant.

Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in

S.C.No.10/2012

seeking

a

decree

for

recovery

of

Rs.14,310/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred

and Ten only). The defendant entered appearance but did

not file written statement. The suit went to trial. The Trial

Court framed two issues for its consideration. The suit

came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree

4

dated:03.08.2016. Hence, plaintiff has filed this Revision

Petition on several grounds as set out in the Revision

Petition.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent

have urged several contentions.

5.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the records with care.

6.

The sole question for consideration is whether

the dismissal of the suit is justified?

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a printing

press and the defendant - Bank had placed orders for

printing ten thousand deposit certificates .

The defendant entered appearance but he did not

present the written statement.

The plaintiff filed the following documents.

1. Photostat copy of the tax Invoice/credit

bill dated 02.10.2010.

2. Photostat copy of the delivery Note

dated:04.10.2010.

5

3. Photostat

copy

of

the

cheque

dated:18.10.2010.

Suffice it to note that the transaction between the

parties is admitted. The defendant paid a sum of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) pertaining to

the delivery note No.632 which has been enchased

through

bank.

The

defendant

neither

denied

the

transaction nor the claim. But the Trial Court failed to take

note of the same and has erroneously proceeded to

dismiss the suit .

I have perused the judgment of the Trial Court with

utmost care. As could be seen from paragraph 10 of the

judgment, learned judge has concluded that only invoice

copy is placed hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The judgment of the Trial Court is cryptic and learned

judge has not considered the evidence of the plaintiff in a

proper perspective. The learned judge has failed to assign

reasons for the dismissal of the suit.

I may venture to say that the suit could not have

been decided the way it was. The non-consideration of

6

material evidence on record has occasioned grave

injustice. The Trial Court has failed to have regard to

relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.

In my considered opinion, the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law. The

judgment and decree dated:03.08.2016 passed by the

Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Udupi in S.C.No.10/2012 is set-

aside.

Resultantly, the suit is decreed with cost.

The

defendant is dir