A party must demonstrate reasonable cause when seeking additional evidence after prior rejections, adhering to the principle of finality in judicial proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking to quash the order dated 17-07-2025 passed on I.A.Nos.16 and 17 filed in Com.O.S.No.763 of 2021 before the concerned Court.

2. Heard Sri B Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri C M nagabhushana, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner is the defendant, the respondent, the plaintiff. The two have a transaction. The transaction is a Joint Development Agreement. The dispute arose out of the Joint Development Agreement and a suit in O.S.No.1652 of 2018 is preferred seeking cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed by the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was transferred to the Commercial Court owing to its nature, it then becomes the Commercial O.S.763 of 2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or the defence of the defendant.

3.2. The petitioner/defendant files an application before the concerned commercial Court seeking production of documents invoking Order IX Rule 1(10) of the CPC. The concerned court by its order dated 19-09-2023 rejects the application by a detailed order. The said rejection has become final, as the petitioner does not choose to challenge the same. After about 2 years when the suit progressed to a large extent, two more applications spring, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and another under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking summoning of the Commissioner of the BDA for production of documents and examination. The concerned Court rejects both the applications by order dated 17-07-2025. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications ought to have been allowed, as it was imperative for the decision of the issue in the lis, inasmuch as the documents that are now sought, would cut into the root of the matter. The learned counsel submits that there is a Rajakaluve that runs through the property which is now the subject matter of the Joint Development Agreement and therefore those documents would clinch the issue as, if a Rajakaluve would pass through the property, the property could not have been the subject matter of Joint Development Agreement at all. 5. The learned counsel Sri C M Nagabhushana appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that these very documents were sought by the petitioner, albeit, on a different provision of law in IA Nos. 7 and 8, the same comes to be rejected by the concerned Court on 19-09-2023, the rejection of which has become final. The learned counsel would further add that though the rejection was on a different reason, nonetheless these very documents were rejected to be placed before the Court or summoned. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The aforesaid facts are a matter of record and would lie in a narrow compass at this juncture. The agreement between the parties is a matter of record. The dispute arising out of the Joint Development Agreement is again a matter of record. Both the parties were before the Civil Court in the year 2018 and the matter stood transferred to the Commercial Court in the year 2021. The issue is, whether the applications filed by the p