IN THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL.

CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45)

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2019

PRESENT: Smt.Latha,
XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

O.S.No.5239/2017
Plaintiff : Nithyananda Dhanapeetam of
Columbus,
Situated at No.820, Pollock Road,
Delaware, Ohio 4301,
United States of America,
Represented by its President
Mrs.Allision Fritz
(By M/s.Viju Associates)
Vs

Defendant : Smt.Aarathi S.Rao,

Aged about 40 years,
D/o. Sethu Madhavan,
R/at PH-A, Grace Garden
Apartment, Hennur Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 043.
(Exparte)

Date of Institution of the suit: 01.08.2017

Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of recording evidence: 18.7.2018
Date of Judgment : 27.05.2019
Total Duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s
26 09 01

JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.3,30,99,567/- against the defendant.

 2 O.S.No.5239/2017

2. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a non-profit

corporation and doing its business as “Nithyananda Vedic

Temple” at United States of America. The plaintiff organizes

programmes and services for the central Ohio communities at

Ohio State, USA. The plaintiff is 100% volunteer.

Nityananada Swamy is the spiritual head of the plaintiff. His

teachings are rooted in the Hindu Religion and vedic

tradition. The defendant was also working with Nityananada

Swamy through plaintiff Institution from 2004-2010 and

teaching yoga, meditation and other valuable and patented

techniques. She was a volunteer in the plaintiff Institution.

The defendant falsely reported that since 2005-2009 she had

been sexually abused from Sri Nityananada Swamy and

defamed the reputation of Nityananada Swamy. Since the

false allegations are made, the plaintiff Institution had filed a

suit before the District Court, Unites States of America, in

case No.2:13 CV 526 and the Court decreed the suit for

$5,15,891.75 i.e. Rs.3,30,99,567/-. Since the defendant is

residing in Bangalore the plaintiff has filed this suit as per

Section 13 of CPC for recovery of Rs. Rs.3,30,99,567/- with

interest at 18% p.a.

 3 O.S.No.5239/2017

3. After registering the suit, summons has been issued to

the defendant. Though, the suit summons received by the

defendant, she did not appear before the Court. Hence, she

has been placed exparte.

4. To prove and substantiate the contention, the President

of the plaintiff Institution got herself examined as PW.1 and

got in all 10 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

plaintiff and he has also filed the written arguments.

6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
claimed in the suit?

2) What order or decree?

7. My findings on the above points are:

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following :

REASONS

8. Point No.1: To substantiate the contention, the President

of the plaintiff Institution namely Allison Fritz got herself

examined as PW.1 and got marked in all 10 documents. PW.1

 4 O.S.No.5239/2017

filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief by reiterating

the plaint averments. According to the P.W.1, the plaintiff is

a non-profit corporation and doing its business as

“Nithyananda Vedic Temple” at United States of America. The

plaintiff organizes programmes and services for the central

Ohio communities at Ohio State, USA. The plaintiff is 100%

volunteer. Nityananada Swamy is the spiritual head of the

plaintiff. His teachings are rooted in the Hindu Religion and

vedic tradition. The defendant was also working with

Nityananada Swamy through plaintiff Institution from 2004-

2010 and teaching yoga, meditation and other valuable and

patented techniques. She was a volunteer in the plaintiff

Institution. The defendant falsely reported that since 2005-

2009 she had been sexually abused from Sri Nityananada

Swamy and defamed the reputation of Nityananada Swamy.

Since the false allegations are made, the plaintiff Institution

had filed a suit before the District Court, Unites States of

America, in case No.2:13 CV 526 and the Hon’ble Court

decreed the suit for $5,15,891.75 i.e. Rs.3,30,99,567/-.

9. The plaintiff in order to execute the foreign judgment

filed this suit under Section 13 of the CPC. As per Section 13

 5 O.S.No.5239/2017

of CPC “A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any

matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same

parties or between parties under whom they or any of them

claim litigating SC under the same title except-

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court

of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the

case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings

to be founded on an incorrect view of international
law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in
cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment

was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach

of any law in force in India.

As held in AIR 1962 SC 1737 the Indian Courts will not

enforce a foreign judgment if it is not that of a competent

Court. Therefore, before executing the judgment and decree

the plaintiff has to file the suit under Section 13 of CPC. The

plaintiff has also produced through P.W.1 the certified copy of

the judgment and as per Section 14 of CPC the Court shall

presume, upon the production of any document purporting to

be a certified copy of a foreign judgment that such judgment

 6 O.S.No.5239/2017

was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless

the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption

may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

10. In the present suit, though the plaintiff substantiated

by examining the President of the plaintiff Institution and also

a witness by producing relevant documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10,

the defendant has failed to appear before the Court. Since the

defendant has failed to appear before the Court and failed to

disclose the presumption available under Section 14 of the

CPC and also failed to establish the contrary to the exception

contemplated under Section 13 of CPC, the Court has to

accept the evidence produced by the plaintiff as it is. As seen

from the certified copy of the judgment the District Court,

United States of America in Case No. 2:13 CV 526 had

decreed the suit against the defendant and directed the

defendant to pay damages of $4,63,211.25, along with

attorney fee $ 10,568.30 and costs of the suit $ 603.20. In

total the award amount is $ 4,74,382.75 with interest at 3%

from 12.8.2014 to 12.7.2017 i.e. $ 41,509. Grant total of

award amount is $ 5,15,891.75. If it is converted into Indian

rupees it amount to a sum of Rs.3,30,99,567/-.

 7 O.S.No.5239/2017

11. In this suit the plaintiff has sought for 18% p.a. of

interest of Rs.3,30,99,567/-. But no where in the CPC

mentioned that the foreign judgment can be altered. If this

Court had granted 18% interest on the suit claim it amounts

to alteration of foreign judgment. According to law it cannot

be altered. The District Court of United States of America

had granted 3% of interest from post judgment. There are no

materials on record to show that the plaintiff is entitled to

18% of interest from the date of the suit. The plaintiff is

entitled to 3% interest from 13.7.2017 since the interest had

already been calculated from 12.8.2014 to 12.7.2017 in the

foreign judgment. For these reasons, Point No.1 is answered

in the Affirmative.

12. Point No.2: In view of the discussions made above and

findings given on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed
with costs.

The Defendant is hereby directed to pay a

sum of 3,30,99,567/- with interest at the rate of
3% p.a. from the date of the suit till the
realization of the decretal amount, failing which
the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same in
accordance with law.
 8 O.S.No.5239/2017

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her,

corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 27th day of May, 2019).

(Latha)
XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff:
P.W.1 Allison Fritz
P.W.2 Anjula Jackson

List of witnesses examined for Defendant: Nil

List of documents marked for the Plaintiff:

Ex.P.1 Certified copy of order in Case No. 2:13-
CV-00526 dt.12.8.2014
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of petition
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of decree
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of exhibits produced in
case No.2/2013 CV 526
Ex.P.5 C.D. pertaining to interview given by
defendant
Ex.P.6 Extract from internet of the defamatory
words of the defendant
Ex.P.7 Copy of complaint
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of forensic report
Ex.P.9 Extract from internet relating to the
publication of issue 29 magazine Mind
Body Spirit
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of complaint given by the
defendant

List of documents marked for the Defendant: Nil

XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru.
9 O.S.No.5239/2017