Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
A. Prabhakara Reddy – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 201900 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Member of Parliament, filed a suit for recovery of a substantial sum based on a contract, agreement, and correspondence. The plaintiff's Chief General Manager, acting as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, was examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. After evidence was led and the matter was posted for reply arguments, the plaintiff sought to adduce additional evidence through an application under Section 151 of CPC, which was allowed by the trial court and challenged in the present writ petition.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable for the relief sought, as it should have been filed under Order 18 Rule 4(1B) of CPC as amended by the CCA. The court also found that the plaintiff was not named as a witness, and no affidavit was filed on his behalf during the Case Management Hearing as required. The trial court's decision to allow the plaintiff to lead additional evidence was based on incorrect premises and legal infirmities, particularly the failure to establish sufficient cause as required by Order 18 Rule 4(1B).Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that a Commercial Court cannot permit a party to lead fresh evidence after the matter is posted for arguments when the witness has not been named in the list of witnesses and the affidavit has not been filed as per the calendar of dates fixed under Order 15A of CPC, except if exceptional grounds are made out. The court also held that the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised despite Section 8 of the CCA when there is a manifest error resulting in grave injustice. [FINAL DECISION] The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.ORDER :
1. The petitioners who are defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in Commercial O.S. No. 1/2018 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Commercial Court, Raichur, are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(b) Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid suit in Commercial O.S. No. 1/2018 seeking for the following reliefs:
(b) To pass any suitable reliefs to which the Plaintiff is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In the said suit, the plaintiff led the evidence of one Sri. P. Chandramouli S/o P. Venkatarama Shastry, Chief General Manager of APR Constructions Limited claiming also to be the GPA Holder of the plaintiff. He was examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. Subsequent thereto, the defendants led their evidence. The witnesses having been cross-examined, the matter was posted for reply arguments. It is at that stage, an application came to be filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) which came to be numbered as I.A. No. 11 on 23.03.2023 vide Annexure-B seeking permission to permit the plaintiff to adduce evidence of the plaintiff. The said application being objected to, came to be allowed by way of the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Sri. Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as under:
4.2. The submission is that all affidavits of all witnesses are required to be filed at the designated time and if they are not so filed, there is no provision to permit the filing of an affidavit in lieu of evidence of a witness after the matter is posted for arguments, in this case reply arguments.
4.3. The application is not maintainable under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, any such application ought to have been filed either under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 or the relevant provision of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
4.4. Thirdly, he submits that the application to file the affidavit in lieu of evidence is filed only to get over the admissions made by PW-1 who has led evidence on all matters and has been cross-examined on all matters.
4.5. If the plaintiff were permitted to file an affidavit of another witness on the entire matter, the answers which had been given by PW-1 would get negated and by filing of the affidavit the lacuna in the evidence could be filled up which has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court.
4.6. Ther
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Commercial Court cannot permit a party to lead fresh evidence after the matter is posted for arguments if the procedural requirements under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked to admit additional evidence in interlocutory proceedings if the evidence is relevant to the controversy, assists in the ends of justice, and does....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and highlights the need to consider the circumstances and record of the case before concluding on a party's....
The court ruled that an ex-parte order is interlocutory and barred from revision under the Commercial Courts Act, but the petitioner retains the right to participate in ongoing proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
