Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 5 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Skanda Sai Marketing, proprietorship of Smt. Vani Vijay (aged ~42), Bengaluru; Respondent – Kondandappa Prop. Venkateshwara Drip Irrigation Systems, Kolar.
  • Original Suit (O.S. No. 1016/2017): Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs 2,58,156, alleging the defendant was a regular customer who purchased PVC pipes and fittings worth Rs 16,17,156 under 16 invoices (Ex.P‑1 to Ex.P‑16), with adjustments for defective goods worth Rs 80,000 and tempo charges Rs 67,000.
  • Defendant’s Position: Denied the plaintiff’s claim, asserted no running account, claimed excess payments of Rs 20,72,000 against the total invoice value and demanded a refund of Rs 4,74,844. No formal counter‑claim was filed under Order VIII Rule 6‑A, no court fee was paid, and no issue was framed.
  • Trial Court Findings: Dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for failure to prove the balance due. However, despite noting the absence of a counter‑claim, court fee, and framed issues, the trial court decreed the plaintiff to refund Rs 4,41,844 to the defendant within 30 days, subject to later payment of court fee (paragraphs 48‑49 of the judgment).
  • Evidence: Plaintiff’s proprietor (PW‑1) was examined; documents Ex.P‑1 to Ex.P‑22 were marked. Defendant produced account statements (Ex.D‑1) during cross‑examination. PW‑1 admitted only invoices P‑1 to P‑16 were pending, admitted the account statement Ex.D‑1, but could not recall the exact date of taking defective goods worth Rs 80,000 and did not produce delivery notes for the invoices. The total of invoices amounted to Rs 16,17,156. Plaintiff claimed receipt of Rs 10,92,000 (Ex.D‑1(a)‑(j) and Ex.P‑17) but failed to account for Rs 7,00,000 received under Ex.D‑1(c)‑(i) and Ex.P‑17, rendering the claim for Rs 2,58,156 untenable.
  • Counsel Arguments: Plaintiff’s counsel argued the trial court erred by granting a monetary decree without a statutory counter‑claim, court fee, or framed issues. Respondent’s counsel contended the decree was justified to prevent unjust enrichment and that the defendant had subsequently paid the court fee.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed in part.
  • The direction to the plaintiff to refund Rs 4,41,844 to the defendant is set aside; the remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
  • Any court fee, if paid by the defendant, shall be refunded.

Topics: Civil Procedure; Refund Decree; Counter‑Claim Requirements