The present respondent, as a plaintiff, has instituted a

suit in O.S.No.203/2012, against the present petitioner for

recovery of money. The said suit is pending in the Court of

learned XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court9).

During the pendency of the suit, more specifically at the

time of cross-examination of DW-2, the present petitioner,

as a defendant, filed two interlocutory applications i.e.,

IA.No.16 under Order VIII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `CPC9), and

IA.No.17 filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of CPC, seeking

permission

to

file

additional

written

statement

permission to produce a document shown in IA.No.17. By

the impugned order dated 22.07.2017, the trial Court

rejected both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the

3

defendant in the trial Court has filed the present writ

petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the knowledge about the document

proposed to be submitted and also of the fact that the Test

Reports filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint and the

details about the Test Reports were all false averments

made by the plaintiff. Only at a belated stage, when certain

materials in that regard were placed by a Company called

M/s.Oliver Twinsafe Valves Limited in O.S.No.7385/2009, in

which suit, the present parties to the petition were also the

defendants and it is after M/s.Oliver Twinsafe Valves

Limited, who was the plaintiff in said O.S.No.7385/2009

came up with an information received by it under Right to

Information Act that the Test Reports furnished by the

present respondent (plaintiff) in O.S.No.203/2012 were

bogus and concocted document, the present petitioner as a

defendant, was constrained to seek liberty to file additional

written statement and also for producing a document to

4

that effect. However, the trial Court without noticing the

intricacies, has only on the ground that allowing of the

applications would further cause delay in disposal of the

Original Suit, has rejected both the applications which was

not justified in the circumstances of the case.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that, as long back as in the year 2015 itself, the

present

petitioner,

who

was

the

defendant

O.S.No.7385/2009 was aware of the stand taken by

M/s.Oliver Twinsafe Valves Limited in O.S.No.7385/2009,

however, the present applications are filed with a delay of

eighteen months without any proper justification, thus, the

applicant was not diligent in making the applications. He

further submits that a pleading to the effect that the alleged

Test Reports are not reliable has already been taken by the

defendant in Paragraph-11 of the written statement, as

such also, the applications filed by the defendant in the trial

Court

(petitioner

herein),

were

not

entertainable.

5

Accordingly, the trial Court has rightly rejected both the

applications.

4. Admittedly, the suit of the plaintiff (respondent

herein) against the defendant (petitioner herein) in the trial

Court in O.S.No.203/2012 is for recovery of a sum of

`9,54,590/-. As could be gathered at this stage from the

submission of the parties that the suit was one with respect

to the alleged supply of goods. The defendant, apart from

disputing the quality of the alleged supply of the goods and

the goods supplied are not as per the required specification,

has denied its alleged liability to pay the claim amount.

After the pleadings of the parties, by framing suitable

issues, the trial Court has proceeded to record the evidence.

After completion of the evidence from the plaintiff9s side, at

the stage of defendant9s evidence, IA.Nos.16 and 17 came

to be filed in the trial Court. However, the trial Court in its

impugned order has mainly forwarded the reason of alleged

possible delay in disposing of the Original Suit for rejection

of both the applications. However, it i