Karnataka High Court
M/S Bangalore Metropolitan vs Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd on 8 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.3930 OF 2022 [GM/CPC]
BETWEEN:
1. M/S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
POST BAG No.2778
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VE.COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD.,
No.220, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.
2. M/S ELCHER MOTORS,
PLOT No.102 AND 102-A,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
No.1, PEETHAMPUR - 454 775
DISTRICT: DHAR,
2
STATE: MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
MHOW-NEEMUCH ROAD BRANCH,
KHANDELWAL CHAMBERS
SECTOR No.1, MHOW-NEEMUCH ROAD,
PITHAMPUR - 454 775
DISTRICT: DHAR, STATE:MADHYA PRADESH,
INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNAN.S., ADVOCATE
FOR R-1 AND R-2;
NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER
DATED 23.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-H MADE ON I.A.FILED ON
16.11.2021 UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 14 OF CPC BY THE
PETITIONER (BY DEFENDANTS IN O.S. No.8020/2011 AND
PLAINTIFF IN O.S. No.2579/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH
No.).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the defendants in Commercial O.S. No.8020 of 2011 on the file of the LXXXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 23.12.2021,rejecting the 3 interlocutory application filed on 16.11.2021 under Order VIII Rule 14 Of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioners are the defendants in the Commercial O.S. No.8020/2011. The petitioners have also filed O.S. No.2579/2011 before the Civil Court seeking the relief of recovery of money. These two suits were clubbed together and evidence has been recorded by the Trial Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein have filed an application (Annexure 'F') under Order VIII Rule 14 of CPC and sought to produce certain documents before the Trial Court. The said application was resisted by the respondents herein. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by order dated 23.12.2021 rejected the application filed by the petitioners herein.
4
3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants in Commercial O.S. No.8020 of 2011, i.e., the petitioners herein, have presented this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramakrishna S., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited the attention of this Court to the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application produced at Annexure 'F' and submitted that, the delay was on account of the fact that the huge records were required to be searched from the record room and therefore, the defendants/petitioners herein were not able to produce the documents before the Trial Court. Accordingly, he submitted that an opportunity be given to the petitioners to produce these documents, which are relevant for the effective adjudication of the suit. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this petition. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition
7. He also referred to the averments made in the affidavit of the deponent and submitted that the reasons assigned are self-explanatory and cannot be taken into consideration, since, the suit is now pending consideration before the Commercial Court, and as such he submitted that in the event the application is allowed, the entire procedure before the Commercial Court would put the clock back. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR @ S.BALIYAN Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B., reported in 2021 SCC Online 734, and invited the attention of this Court 6 to paragraph 36 of the judgment and submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is sustainable in law in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, I have carefully considered the fact that both the petitioners and the respondents herein have filed the counter suits before the Trial Court, which are now pending consideration before the Commercial Court. A perusal of the order-sheet in the Trial Court would indicate that originally, the suits were filed before the regular Civil Court and thereafter, since the relief sought for by the parties are commercial in nature, the suits were transferred to the Commercial Court in terms of the notification thereof.
10. In this regard, I have carefully considered the reasons assigned by the petitioners herein with regard to the delay in producing the documents under 7 consideration, at Annexure 'F'. I have also carefully considered the reasons set out in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit and the accompanying application.
11. Though I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Ramakrishna, that in a Commercial Court a time- bound disposal has to be made taking into consideration the scope and object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, however, this Court is of the view that in the event if the application produced at Annexure 'F' is not allowed, the petitioners will be put to hardship and prejudice that may be caused to the defendants/petitioners herein in O.S. No.8020 of 2011. By taking into consideration and with regard to the fact that the precedural laws have been made to mitigate the hardship that may be caused to the parties and also taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UDAY SHANKAR TRIYAR vs. RAM KALEWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER, reported in 2006 (1) SCC 75, 8 I am of the view that if the procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of the parties or to cause injustice. Further, I have also noticed from the writ petition that the petitioners herein are the statutory State undertaking and in the event if the application is not allowed, it may cause financial burden on the State undertaking. In this regard, taking into account that there may be a delay in filing the application for production of the documents before the Trial Court and in order to compensate the same, I am of the view that the writ petition be allowed, by setting aside the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court with imposition of cost of Ten Thousand rupees [Rs.10,000/- ], including the cost imposed by the Trial Court, which shall be payable by the petitioners herein to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in that view of the matter, the Commercial Court is directed to accept the application 9 along with the documents and proceed further in the matter, accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT:SN