Karnataka High Court Overturns Order, Remands Case to Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for Appellant to Present Real Estate Cash Transaction Evidence
Category: Civil Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The appellant is accused of being an employee of respondent No.2, Sri.Gurusarvabhauma Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited, and that he conducted a fictitious transaction and bought the subject immovable property in his name only to defraud the Bank’s depositors. Based on our careful consideration, if this is the allegation made against the appellant, he should be given the chance to demonstrate that he is not a benami purchaser of the immovable property and that he obtained the property through other means.
The learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 argues that the appellant’s argument that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and should be set aside may not be true given that it is evident from the impugned order itself that notices were given to the appellant and that, in the event that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court, a paper publication was also made. Despite the notice being published in newspapers, the appellant did not appear before the trial court, and as a result, the impugned order was made.
ISSUES:
The issue in this case is that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court despite being issued notices and having a notice published in newspapers. As a result of the appellant’s failure to appear, the impugned order was passed by the trial court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 argues that the appellant’s argument that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and should be set aside may not be true given that it is evident from the impugned order itself that notices were given to the appellant and that, in the event that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court, a paper publication was also made.
It was also argued that despite the notice being published in newspapers, the appellant did not appear before the trial court, and as a result, the impugned order was made. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the appellant’s assertion—that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and therefore should be set aside—is not accurate. According to the details of the impugned order, the trial court had issued multiple notices to the appellant. When the appellant failed to appear in response to these notices, the court took the additional step of issuing a notice via a newspaper publication to ensure the appellant was informed. Despite these efforts, the appellant did not appear before the trial court. Consequently, the court proceeded to pass the impugned order due to the appellant’s continued absence.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court took into consideration the admitted fact that the appellant is accused of being an employee of Sri. Gurusarvabhauma Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited, that respondent No. 2 made a fictitious transaction, and that respondent No. 2 purchased the subject immovable property in the appellant’s name only with the intention of defrauding the Bank’s depositors.
The court further held that if this is the allegation made against the appellant, we believe he should be given the chance to prove that he is not a benami purchaser of the immovable property and that he had his own sources to purchase the property. Therefore, we believe that the appellant should be granted a chance for a hearing.
For that reason, the court also believed that the contested order needed to be overturned, and that the appellant should be allowed to present any evidence supporting his claim that he paid cash for the subject real estate and that the transaction had nothing to do with respondent No. 2 in this case. The case was remanded to the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE cases, Bengaluru, for further consideration.
Judgement reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
