IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2022 (MON)

BETWEEN:

1. JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 055 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN RAJ S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. DR. GIRIDHARA REDDY P S/O LATE P. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, EX - PRINCIPAL Digitally signed VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY by R/O NO.203, SMR HIRETAGE, SHARADAVANI B 3^RD CROSS, TMN STREET, Location: High Court of NEW THIPPASANDRA Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 075 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR T.M., ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN O.S.No.8627/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.8627/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022 passed by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for recovery of money was partly decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of money. The appellant-defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to encash the earned leave of 48 days?

(ii) Whether defendant institution proves that, plaintiff was paid consolidated remuneration including all fringe benefits?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount?

(iv) What order or decree?

4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P5. However, the appellant- defendant cross-examined PW-1 but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. Considering the same, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant – defendant, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of the respondent - plaintiff was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and matter be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6. Per contra, it is contented by the respondent that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal?

8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has taken into account the fact that the evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant - defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to