Karnataka High Court
M/S State Bank Of India vs Morarji Meghji Udeshi on 23 December, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NOS.18788-790 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA
OVERSEAS BRANCH, ST.MARKS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
ACCOUNTS (OSB), SRI Y.HANUMESH RAO,
S/O Y.N.RAO,
HINDU AGED 53 YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNA SWAMY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MORARJI MEGHJI UDESHI
16, QUEEN'S TERRACE, COLOMBO-3,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POA
2ND RESPONDENT.
2 . SRI AJAY MERCHANT
4A, SANTOSH APARTMENTS,
NO.2, PALMGROVE ROAD, VICTORIA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560047.
3 . M/S SREE KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT 1074, 11TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560038. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T S AMAR KUMAR & KRISHNA MURTHY K R,
ADVOCATES FOR R2;
SRI CHITAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2016 AT ANNEX-J
2
PASSED BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE ON
I.A.9, 10, 11 IN O.S.5402/1997 AND ALLOW THE SAME
AND DIRECT THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHALL TAKE ON
RECORD, KEEP THE EVIDENCE AND MARK THE
DOCUMENTS IN O.S.3541/1997 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner being the plaintiff in a money suit in O.S.No.5402/1997 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 05.03.2016 whereby his applications in I.A. Nos.9, 10 & 11 having been rejected, learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has refused to permit him to place on record and use the evidence recorded in the common trial of this suit and the other suit in O.S.No.3541/1997 which has culminated into a compromise decree.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order inter alia contending that the evidentiary material of another suit to which the petitioner was not a party, cannot be made use of in his suit.
3
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Admittedly petitioner's money suit in O.S.No.5402/1997 was clubbed with 3rd respondent's money suit against respondents 1 & 2 in O.S.No.3541/1997 and that both the suits were tried together; thus there is some reason as to why the common trial was held, presumably for using the trial material in each other's suits to the extent legally admissible; this aspect of the matter has not animated the impugned order and thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
(b) As already mentioned above, both the suits were tried together; although in the suit in O.S.No.3541/1997 filed by respondent no.3 against respondent nos.1 & 2, this petitioner was not a party;
there is some relevance insofar as the material brought on record in the common trial; a gratuitous event like the parties to the said suit compromising the lis cannot come in the way of the petitioner making use of material 4 generated in the common trial; an argument to the contrary sounds illogical and offends the sense of justice.
(c) What heavens would fallen down if petitioner's subject applications had been allowed, is not forthcoming from reasoning of the impugned order, after all whether the evidentiary material generated in the common trial is legally admissible or not and is relevant or not, can be the subject matter of consideration at the stage of argument; but preventing the petitioner from making use of this evidentiary material is prejudicial to his interest, especially when respondents 1 & 2 to the suit of the petitioner were defendants 1 & 2 to the suit said of the 3rd respondent.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; petitioner's subject applications having been favoured, learned Judge of the Court below is requested to take further steps permitting the petitioner to make use of the evidentiary material generated in the common trial for the suit in question subject to rules of relevancy & admissibility.
Since the suit is of the year 1997, a request is made to the learned Judge of the Court below to hear & dispose 5 off the suit before the onset of Summer Vacation 2021 and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/