H.B. BHAGYALAKSHMI Vs. SUDHAMANI H.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/2018 passed in S.C.No.1642/2017 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. This Court has issued the notice against the respondent but she is unrepresented.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that ATM card was given to the mother of the defendant and her mother has utilized the ATM card and bank account and drawn the loan amount of Rs.60,000.00 and the plaintiff has failed to prove the said loan transaction and the Trial Court also given the reason in paragraph 15 of the order that, the cross-examination of PW1 is sufficient to say that the mother of the defendant has taken the loan from the plaintiff not the defendant, hence, dismissed the suit and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the document at Ex.P2 wherein an amount was credited to the account of the respondent and the same is also not disputed by the respondent but only contention was taken that her mother used to draw the amount from her account through the ATM and when there is an admission to that effect, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit.