Bangalore District Court
Sri Varadharaja Fruit Products Pvt Ltd vs Hopewell Manufacturing And Exports Pvt ... on 13 November, 2025
1
COM.Misc.25/2023
KABC170007462023
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU
(CCH-83)
PRESENT: SRI. VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI, L.L.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.Misc.No.25/2023
Dated on this 13th Day November 2025
Petitioners 1. Sri. Varadharaja Fruit Products
Pvt. Ltd., head office and billing
address, B-XX-3181-B, Gurudev
Nagar, Sigma Scan Road, District
Ludhiana - 141 012, Punjab
2. Sri. Varadharaja Fruit
Products Pvt. Ltd., Factory at
Tiruthani Road, N.R. Pet, Village
Krishnapuram, Chittor - 514 419,
Andhra Pradesh, Both the
Petitioners are represented by
their senior executive Mr. V.
Venugopal.
2
COM.Misc.25/2023
(By Sri. G. Raghunandan -
Advocate)
//versus//
Respondents 1. Hopewell Manufacturing and
Exports Pvt. Ltd, Sri. Ayappa
Complex, 2nd floor, 1/1, Dinnur,
Sultanpalya Main road, (oop:
Pushpanjali Theatre) R.T. Nagar
PO, Bangalore - 560 032.
2. Mis Ashwini, Purchase office of
Sri. Varadharaj Fruit Products Pvt.
Ltd., C/o Asianlak Health Foods
Limited, V.P.O. Jandiali Chandigarh
Road, Near Kohara, District
Ludhian - 141 112, Punjab.
(Respondent No.1 Sri.
P.H.Ramalingam - Advocate and
Respondent No.2 is dismissed as
per order dated 02.07.2025)
ORDER
The Petitioners filed this petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for seeking reliefs as under:
(a) Call for records in Com.O.S. No.
7955/2018.
3
COM.Misc.25/2023
(b) Set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree passed in OS No. 7955/2018 dated 30.03.2022 and restore the suit in OS No. 7955/2018 on its original file.
2. The Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-
The Respondent No. 2, who was employed by the Petitioners at the time of filing the suit in O.S. No. 7955/2018, has since left the services, and his whereabouts are unknown. Therefore, he is made a formal party to this petition. The Petitioners were named as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforementioned suit, filed by the Respondent for the recovery of money before the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26). The Petitioners appeared in court and submitted their written statement through one Mr. Shilendra Kumar Jha, the Commercial Manager at that time. The case was later transferred to this Court on 06-03-2020, as the dispute was commercial in nature. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the courts were closed, and during this period, the Petitioner's Commercial Manager, who was representing the case, left the company without any notice. As a result, 4 COM.Misc.25/2023 the case was not brought to the attention of the Petitioners, and they could not effectively defend it. Additionally, the Petitioner's office and factory were also closed for an extended period due to the pandemic. The proceedings in the case commenced on 16-03-2021, and on 30-03-2022, the Hon'ble Court passed an ex-parte judgment decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. It is important to note that the Petitioners or their Advocates were not served with any notice upon the reopening of the case after the pandemic. Certified copies of the order sheet, judgment dated 30-03- 2022, and decree dated 26-05-2022 have been obtained. The Petitioners submit that they have a strong case on merits, and if not given an opportunity to defend themselves, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury that cannot be compensated. The Petitioners are approaching this Hon'ble Court promptly upon learning of the ex-parte judgment and obtaining the necessary certified copies. The non-appearance of the Petitioners in the suit was due to bona fide reasons, not intentional. The Petitioners have a good case on merits, and denial of an opportunity to defend themselves would result in irreparable loss. No hardship or injury will be caused to the Plaintiff if the Petition is allowed.5
COM.Misc.25/2023
3. Per contra, the respondent No.1 has filed objection stating that, the petition filed by the Petitioners for seeking set aside the ex-parte Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 and passed in Com.O.S. No. 7955/2018 and restore the suit in Com.O.S. No. 7955/2018 on its original file, is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 filed the original suit against the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for the recovery of money before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 7955/2018. After the summons were served, the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The suit was subsequently posted for evidence, and Respondent No. 1, as the Plaintiff, adduced their evidence as PW1. The Petitioners, as Respondents, cross- examined PW1, though with a substantial delay. As per the order dated 02-03-2020, the Hon'ble City Civil Court noted that the Plaintiff had filed the suit for the recovery of money from the Respondent, who is engaged in manufacturing and export business. The suit pertains to an order placed by the Respondent with the Plaintiff for the supply of Totapuri Mango Pulp. The amount claimed in the 6 COM.Misc.25/2023 plaint arises from this commercial transaction, and the dispute is governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The cause of action is stated to have arisen on 19-07-2018, and the Court ordered that the file be put before the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge for transfer to the Commercial Court. Subsequently, as per the Notification CCC(P-5)58/2019 dated 06-03-2020, the suit in O.S. No. 7955/2018 was transferred to CCH-83. After the transfer of the case to the court of CCH-83, Respondent No. 1 appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of admissions and denials before the Hon'ble Court. The counsel for the Petitioners in this miscellaneous petition was absent on several hearing dates. As a result, the Hon'ble Court extended time on multiple occasions, granting opportunities for the Petitioners to submit their statement of admissions and denials. However, despite these extensions, the counsel for the Petitioners was absent for the cross-examination of PW1 and failed to adduce their own evidence. Consequently, after hearing the arguments from Respondent No. 1, the Court passed its judgment on 30-03-2022, decreeing the suit filed by Respondent No. 1.
7COM.Misc.25/2023 Despite the judgment and decree dated 30-03-2022, the Petitioners failed to pay the amount with interest to Respondent No. 1. As a result, Respondent No. 1 filed Com Ex. No. 544/2022. The Petitioners and their counsel were aware of the proceedings but, despite this, failed to appear before the court of CCH-83 for the cross-examination of PW1 and did not adduce their own evidence. Consequently, the court, finding no remedy, decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioners seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30-03-2022 and restore the suit in Com O.S. No. 7955/2018 on its original file is neither maintainable in law nor in fact, and it should be dismissed with exemplary costs. The Petitioners have not specifically stated when they became aware of the judgment and decree passed in Com O.S. No. 7955/2018, nor have they explained why they failed to appear before the court. There is an inordinate delay in filing the petition before this Hon'ble Court, and they have not provided valid reasons for the delay. As such, the petition filed by the Petitioners should be dismissed with exemplary costs. Furthermore, the Petitioners have failed to disclose how they came to know about the passing of the judgment and decree, or what communications they 8 COM.Misc.25/2023 had with their lawyers after engaging them to defend the original suit. The Petitioners initially appeared through their lawyers, and later, after the matter was transferred to the Commercial Court, they continued to appear. It is the duty of both the Advocate and the parties to keep track of the case. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. In support the contention of the Petitioner V.Venugopal is examined as PW.1 and relied 2 documents marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. In support of the contention of the Respondent has appeared and no witness was examined and not relied any documents.
5. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent on the points was arise by this court.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the Plaintiff, the following points arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the Petitioners are is made out a grounds to allow the petition ?
2. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above Points are as under:
9COM.Misc.25/2023
1. Point No.1 :- In the Negative .
2. Point no.2 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The Petitioners who are a Respondents in O.S. 7955/2018, appeared before CCH-26, engaged an advocate, filed a written statement and also cross- examined PW.1 in part. However, the case is adjourned on dated 02.01.2020 for further cross-examination of PW.1. Subsequent date, court find that the said suit is commercial in nature and placed the matter before Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge for further orders. Subsequently, on dated 13.03.2020 the matter is transferred from CCH-26 to CCH-83. After Covid-19 pandemic the court was closed. The case was taken on board on 19.01.2021 and subsequently the case is posted for appearance of by both side on dated 16.03.2021. Since, then the Respondent and their counsel was not presented till 13.03.2022. On 13.03.2022 this court has passed the Judgment by decreeing the suit.
10COM.Misc.25/2023
9. The Petitioner has taken a contention that, the Petitioner has filed a written statement through one Mr. Shilendra Kumar Jha who was working with the Petitioners company as Commercial Manager. Subsequently, the case was transferred to this court on dated 06.03.2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic and in the meantime the commercial manager of the Petitioner's who was representing the case has left the services of the Petitioners abruptly without intimation and there by the case was not in the knowledge of the Petitioners and hence could not be effectively defended. The office and the factory of the Petitioners were also remind closed for long time due to Covid-19 Pandemic. It is argued that, the Petitioners have very good case on merits to defend themselves in the above case and if no opportunity is given the Petitioners will be put to irreparable loss. Hence, the Petitioners prays to allow the petition.
10. In support of the contention of the Petitioners Sri. V. Venugopal as Pw.1 and relied 2 documents marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Ex.P.1 is the extract of Board resolution which is giving an authority to represent PW.1 and adduced evidence. Ex.P.2 is the C/c of order sheet in Com.O.S.No. 7955/2018.
11COM.Misc.25/2023
11. I have gone through the order sheet, wherein it reveals that, the Respondent and their counsel were appeared on 02.12.2019 and partly cross-examined PW.1. Subsequently, the Respondent counsel was absent and Respondent has also not appeared before this court. Therefore, since 02.01.2022 neither Petitioners nor his counsel appeared before this court. It is a drastic negligent by the Petitioner who being the Senior Executive in a Petitioner company and even the Petitioner is jurisdiction person having well educated officials as not come forward to represent the suit. In this regard, I relied the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as observed in Smt. Parvathamma and others vs. Jayamma and another in RFA No. 1761/2016 dated 27.04.2018 the parties are required to be diligent in prosecution of the proceedings and duty is cast on the parties to enquire with their legal counsel regarding the progress of the proceedings. The extract opinion of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Para -11 as thus:
Para 11 : It is seen that though the judgment was passed on 20.12.2013, certified 12 COM.Misc.25/2023 copy was applied only on 17.3.2016 and the vague assertion that the advocate did not inform the Respondents as regards the disposal of the suit does not inspire any confidence. Parties are required to be diligent in prosecution of the proceedings and duty is cast on the parties to enquire with their legal counsel regarding the progress of the proceedings and not-enquiring regarding the stage of litigation between 20.12.2013 and 17.3.2016 reflects a negligent attitude and no sufficient cause has been assigned, which is worthy of acceptance as regards the inaction in following-up the proceedings for the aforesaid period. Hence, the explanation is not acceptable.
12. In view of the above Judgment, I am of the considered view that, the Petitioners have not made any efforts to appeared before the court and even not verified the date of the suit through online also. Therefore, the Respondent/Petitioner has not made out any grounds to allow the petition. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Negative.
13. Point No.2 : -Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
13COM.Misc.25/2023 ORDER The Petition filed by the Petitioner under Order IX rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby dismissed.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Petitioner and Respondent to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, verified and corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of November, 2025).
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1 V. Venugopal 14 COM.Misc.25/2023 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Extract of Board Resolution Ex.P.2 C/c of order sheet in Com.O.S.7955/2018.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE Respondent NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE Respondent NIL (VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI), XXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.