Karnataka High Court
M/S Lehry Instrumentation And Valves ... vs M/S Aura Engineering Contracts Pvt Ltd on 11 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.13641 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S LEHARY INSTRUMENTATION AND VALVES PVT LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PB NO.1506 LEHRY CHAMBERS
CHENNAI-600001
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.18/1, II AND III, 2ND FLOOR,
GURKAR RAMANAYAK LANE,
S.P.ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 002.
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MR. SANJAY JUDE NATHAN
S/O MR. JOHN THOMAS JODEPH NATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY.B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S AURA ENGINEERING CONTRACTS PVT LTD
NO.2 AT 37/12 2ND MAIN
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR SURESH BABU T R
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
2
2. M/S AURA ENGINEERING CONTRACTS PVT LTD
NO.2 AT 37/12 2ND MAIN
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
GOVINDARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MRS VEENA BASAVARAJAIAH
FIRM REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS.NO.10359/2015 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,BANGALORE
CITY(CCH NO.19) BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) on an interlocutory applications filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC, who has declined to grant leave to the 3 present petitioner/plaintiff to offer for further cross examination in O.S.No.10359/2015 as per Annexure- A. The said order is under challenge.
2. Plaintiff tendered his oral evidence and he was partly cross examined. However, on 16.03.2022, the present petitioner/plaintiff failed to appear before the Court and therefore, further cross of P.W.1 was closed. The present application is filed by the plaintiff to recall the order dated 16.03.2022 and permit plaintiff to offer for further cross examination. The respondents/defendants have contested this application by filing objections. The learned Judge by impugned order has rejected this application.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the order under challenge. 4
4. The facts in the present case on hand are quite peculiar in nature. The plaintiff was partially cross examined on 28.09.2021. The matter was adjourned to 11.11.2021 for further cross of P.W.1. Thereafter, there are several adjournments on account of petitioner failing to appear before the Court. Finally on 16.03.2022, the learned Judge on account of absence of plaintiff has taken as no further cross of P.W.1 and consequently, closed plaintiff's evidence.
5. Plaintiff now, by filing an application, intends to offer for further cross examination, while defendants are resisting the application by contending that they are not inclined to further cross examine plaintiff. If defendants are not wiling to cross examine the plaintiff and if further cross of P.W.1 is taken as closed, I am unable to understand as to how plaintiff can impose and insist defendants to further cross examine plaintiff. If the entire evidence was 5 discarded, then plaintiff could have moved an application to recall the earlier order and permit the plaintiff to offer for cross examination. By closing plaintiff's evidence, it is a defendants who are put at loss, but very strangely defendants have not shown any interest to further cross examine P.W.1. Therefore, the order under challenge does not warrant any interference. No error is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK