Pramod Mehra vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 6 February, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pramod Mehra vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 6 February, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                       1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                  BANGALORE

 DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

                    BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO.48228/2012(GM-KSFC)


BETWEEN

PRAMOD MEHRA
S/O N.K.MEHRA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2 BEACH CROFT,
SVS MARG, MUMBAI.        ... PETITIONER

(By Smt NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADV)

AND

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NO.25, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ... RESPONDENT


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
6.11.12 PASSED ON IA FILED U/O 16 RULE 1 AND
2 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC IN CMIS 944/94 AT ANNX-
A.
                            2



    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Petitioner arraigned as respondent No.2 in Misc. No.944/1994 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore, filed by the respondent-KSFC, aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2012 allowing I.A. under order 16 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, has presented this petition.

2. Respondent having filed the miscellaneous petition invoking Section 31(a)(a) and 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, for a judgment and decree to recover Rs.1,34,26,588.90 as on 10.6.1994 together with interest at the contractual rate as also compound interest, after conclusion of the evidence of the parties, filed I.A under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for additional evidence by summoning a witness. In the affidavit accompanying the 3 application it is stated that, the KSFC having taken into account the paripassu arrangement with KSSIDC and payments made to KIADB and KEB, worked out the sale price approximately to Rs.24.69 lakhs, which was adjusted towards the account of the defaulting company on a tentative basis and the details of the accounts are maintained by the accounts department and in order to prove the said payments made by the KSFC, the examination of the Accounts Officer is found to be very necessary.

3. The Court below having regard to the averments set out in the application, allowed the same on 6.11.2012 in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is no doubt true that the application is filed after the conclusion of the trial whence parties had 4 adduced evidence and it was at the stage of arguments. The proceedings in Misc.Case 944/94 being original proceeding, whence parties would have had to adduce all and every evidence within their knowledge and as the KSFC had not examined the Deputy Manager, Accounts Department, in order to sustain its assertion of having maintained accounts by the Accounts Department, there was a need to file the application and examine the Deputy Manager.

5. In my considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the order dated 6.11.2012 allowing the application. Needless to state, petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and also if necessary, to file application for adducing further evidence on his side.

In that view of the matter, petition stands rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE bkp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court