Karnataka High Court
M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd vs Mr. Vidyadhara on 13 July, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24365
WP No. 14687 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.14687 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
DYNAMIC PARK, PEENYA,
BENGALURU-560 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DGM-HR, IR AND ADMIN, CORPORATE,
MR KIRANKUMAR C,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. VIDYADHARA
S/O MUNINANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R.AT NO.477, SIDDESWARASWAMI NILAYA,
6TH CROSS, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR,
Digitally LAGGERE,
signed by BENGALURU-560 058.
VANDANA
S ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI.S. RAGHUNANDAN., ADVOCATE)
High Court
of THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
Karnataka
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD
20.6.2023 IN OS.NO.33/2016 ON IA.NO.1 AND 2 OF 2023 AT ANNX-Q TO
THIS WP PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDL. CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ,
BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24365
WP No. 14687 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned common order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 / 2023 in O.S.No.33/2016 by the XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for permission to produce additional documents and Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, for permission to produce additional documents was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the respondent - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - defendant for declaration and other reliefs and the said suit is being contested by the petitioner. During the course of evidence, respondent - plaintiff filed the instant applications seeking permission to produce additional documents. The said applications were opposed by the petitioner - defendant on the ground that similar applications, which had been filed earlier by the respondent having been dismissed, the respondent - plaintiff would not be -3- NC: 2023:KHC:24365 WP No. 14687 of 2023 entitled to once again file the instant applications, which were barred by principles of resjudicata. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order by allowing the applications.
4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the documents sought to be produced are relevant and essential for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and consequently, one more opportunity is to be provided in favour of the respondent to produce additional documents and liberty has been reserved by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner - defendant to raise objections at the time of marking the additional documents, whose production has been made subject to proof by the Trial Court as can be seen from the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court has not occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath & others - (2015) 5 SCC 423. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:24365 WP No. 14687 of 2023
5. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.
(ii) The applications - I.A.Nos.1 and I.A.2 / 2023 filed by the respondent - plaintiff stands allowed, subject to the condition that the respondent - plaintiff adduce further evidence on 27.07.2023 without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner -
defendant to cross-examine PW-1 with reference to additional documents.
(iv) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl. / SV