IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2025 (MON)

BETWEEN:

SMT. INDIRA W/O SRI. R.N. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT "SRI. ELURAMMA, DEVI KRUPE" NO.111, RAMANAHALLI (HOSAHALLI)

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI MAHESH M R S/O M.G. RACHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. OPP: SRI. BASAVESWARA, SWAMY TEMPLE, HANIYAMBADI ROAD Digitally signed by HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-571 401.

RUPA V …RESPONDENT Location: (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A V., ADVOCATE)

High Court Of Karnataka THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.105/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'the CPC') by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.105/2019 dated 01.03.2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.21,82,367/- on the ground that the appellant received Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondent on 31.10.2016 and agreed to return the same along with 12% interest per annum. It is averred that the appellant executed a pro-note as a security towards the loan and despite repeated requests, she could not repay the amount. It is further averred that the appellant issued a Cheque dated 04.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.21,44,000/- towards the discharge of the loan amount which came to be returned as 'funds insufficient' from the bank account of the appellant. It is also averred that the respondent got issued a legal notice to the appellant and despite service of notice, the loan amount was not repaid. Hence, filed a suit for recovery of money.

3. The appellant entered appearance before the Trial Court but did not file a written statement. The Trail Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The respondent examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8(d). The Trial Court, on appreciation of the submissions and evidence on record decreed the suit with costs against the appellant by ordering the respondent to recover Rs.21,82,367/- with current and future interest @ 12% per annum from the appellant/defendant. Being aggrieved, this appeal.

4. Smt.Anusha Nandish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1479 days in filing the appeal as there were negotiations between the parties to resolve the dispute amicably and hence, could not file a written statement. It is the specific case of the appellant that she did not file a police complaint, as agreed in the Panchayath, since the claim of the respondent is false and on the assurance that the suit would be withdrawn. However, to her surprise, the suit continued and was decreed. It is submitted that the appellant filed miscellaneous petition seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is provided to the appellant by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court to reconsider the suit on merits, after providing an opportunity to file a written statement and contest the suit, justice would be served. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to deposit reasonable amount to show her bona fides so that the Trial Court can consider the suit on merits after recording her evidence. It is contended that the burden of proving legal liability has not been properly discharged by the respondent; howe