Failure to comply with discovery orders can result in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to court directives in litigation.

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.11 IN OS NO.73/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICACTION FILED UNDER ORDER.11 RULE 21 READ WITH SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Sathya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Manoj K., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Mahabaleshwar G. C., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. The present revision petition is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.73/2013 challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order XI Rule 21 of CPC.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.73/2013 with the following prayer:

The plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Pass a judgment and decree against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a principal sum of Rs.6,74,76,632/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy Four Lakhs Seventy Six Lakhs Six Hundred and Thirty Two Only) together with interest thereon at 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment and/or actual realization thereof (as per particulars of claim being Exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint);

b. Award the plaintiff with costs of the suit; and

c. Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.2. In the plaint, it is contended that plaintiff is an incorporated company under the provisions of Companies Act having registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title and plaintiff company is engaged in construction business with sufficient experience and expertise to execute mega projects in infrastructure with an excellent track record. Their business activities included transporting engineering, power transmission and distribution, energy, environment and pipelines, hydroelectric power structures, hydraulic and irrigation and industrial structures and buildings.

3.3. It is further contended that defendant No.1 is a corporation formed under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and defendant No.2 is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act which is a State Government undertaking having its office at Bengaluru and Mangaluru.

3.4. It is further contended that in the year 2003, defendants floated tenders inviting the bids for execution and completion of the work entitled ‘Distribution System for Mangaluru South’. The said work was required to be executed in three different zones of Mangaluru city viz., Western zone, Central zone and Eastern Zone.

3.5. Plaintiff submitted the bids in respect of those three zones vide separate letters and defendants accepted the bids of the plaintiff. In furtherance to the letters of acceptance, three separate agreements all dated 04.09.2003 were executed between the defendants as employer on one part and plaintiff as contractor on the other part. Said agreement contained clauses as to completion of work and terms and conditions therein.

3.6. Contract documents were executed which are referred as under (hereinafter referred to as contractual packages):

Thus, the total contractual value was to the tune of Rs.25,14,03,653/-.

3.7. The work was required to be carried out as per the said contract including the terms and conditions contained in the contractual documents which were identical in nature. There was also some ri