Writ Petition No. 31444 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31444 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: STATE BANK OF MYSORE CHAMARAJAPET BRANCH (NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PB 1803 NO 29 4TH MAIN CHAMARAJAPET,BANGALORE 560018 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR MOHAMMED ASLAM. (BY SRI. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: P MUKUNDAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE G PARTHASARTHY R/AT 19/10, BAWA ROAD RESIDENCY APARTMENTS ALWARPET, CHENNAI 600018. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED: 5.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 3 TO 5/2024 IN OS NO. 6660/2014 BY THE HON’BLE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-42) BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Legal Reasoning
Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3/2024 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the order dated 13.06.2023 and to reopen the case for plaintiff evidence, I.A.No.4/2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall PW1 for further evidence and I.A.No.5/2024 Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce documents, in O.S.No.6660/2014, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the said applications. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.18,89,723/- from the defendant with future interest at 18% p.a. On service of suit summons, the defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement. On - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. After completion of the evidence of plaintiff, defendant requested for framing of additional issues. Accordingly, additional issue was framed on 04.11.2019. On framing of additional issue, the defendant- Bank has adduced its evidence. At that time, the plaintiff filed a memo dated 04.12.2019 seeking for reserving his liberty to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of defendant’s evidence. After the evidence of the defendant was completed, the plaintiff has filed I.A.Nos.3 to 5 of 2024. The Trial Court, by impugned order dated 05.11.2024 has allowed the said applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the defendant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has contended that the right of the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence does not extend to overcome the omissions in his additional evidence or other material admissions in his cross-examination and in the guise of rebuttal evidence, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence. Since the additional issue has been framed, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead additional rebuttal evidence where the onus is on the defendant and defendant has discharged the burden. She further contended that even though additional issue is framed on 04.11.2019, there is no explanation or reason forthcoming for the delay in filing the application seeking for production of additional documents. The Trial Court without giving any valid reason has erred in allowing the applications.
Decision
Hence, she sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff has contended that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Thereafter, on request of defendant, additional issue came to be framed on 04.11.2019. Immediately, on 04.12.2019, the plaintiff has filed a memo seeking for reserving his right to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of the defendant’s evidence and hence, he has all rights to recall - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 the PW-1 and to examine his witnesses on additional issue framed. He has also contended that he has all the rights to adduce rebuttal evidence in respect of additional issue. Further, he has contended that plaintiff has reserved his right to adduce rebuttal evidence and he need not give any explanation for production of additional documents and it is the right available to the parties. In respect of his contention he has relied upon decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.30338/2003 dated 15.07.2003 and decision of this Court passed in Misc.Civil.No.3231/2011 dated 10.02.2011. Hence, he sought for dismissal of writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.18,89,723/- from the defendant with future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing suit till realization. On service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Accordingly, the plaintiff led evidence. When the matter was posted for evidence of defendant, the defendant filed an application for framing additional issues. Thereafter, the Trial Court has framed additional issue on 04.11.2019, which reads as under: “Whether the defendant bank proves that the fixed deposit account held in the name of the plaintiff was an Hindu Undivided Family account?” 7. Immediately on 04.12.2019, the plaintiff has filed a memo for reserving his liberty to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of defendant’s evidence. Thereafter, he has not filed any application for production of documents in respect of additional issues. The present applications have been filed after evidence of the defendant. 8. The specific contention of the defendant is that now the application for production of additional documents has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 been filed by the plaintiff to overcome the omissions in the additional evidence and other omissions in the cross- examination. 9. Even though the additional issue has been framed on 04.11.2019, the application for production of documents has been filed in the year 2024. There is no valid or cogent reasons forthcoming in the application for non-production of documents immediately after framing of additional issue. The Trial Court has not answered this averment made by the defendant in the objection. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.5 is required to be set aside, and order passed on I.A.No.3 and I.A.No.4 is required to be confirmed. 11. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13420 WP No. 31444 of 2024 b) The order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, I.A.No.3/2024 and I.A.No.4/2024, is hereby confirmed. The order passed on I.A.No.5/2024 for filed seeking documents, is hereby set aside. permission to produce c) The Trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.5 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunities to both the parties. All pending I.As. in this writ petition, if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34