Dismissed

M/S Kavveri Telecom Products Limited v. M/S Pota Global Logistics India Private Limited

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023WP/866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Trial Court order allowing a plaintiff to produce additional documents before the trial commenced. The Court held the Trial Court exercised discretion correctly without causing mis-carriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as there was no illegality or mis-carriage of justice.

M/S Kavveri Telecom Products Limited Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23361 WP No. 866 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 866 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S KAVVERI TELECOM PRODUCTS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.31-36, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET MAIN, 2ND STAGE ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076 REP BY ITS DIRECTORS.

¶9

SRI.C.SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF M/S KAVVERI TELECOM PRODUCTS LTD PLOT NO.31-36, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET MAIN, 2ND STAGE, ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 076.

¶10

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.RAJPETA HANUMANTHAREDDY KASTHURI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DIRECTOR OF M/S KAVVERI TELECOM PRODUCTS LTD PLOT NO.31-36, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET MAIN, 2ND STAGE ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S POTA GLOBAL LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23361 WP No. 866 of 2022

¶17

UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING OFFICE AT NO.150, 2ND FLOOR SRI RAJ, 2ND MAIN, EAST OF NGEF KASTURINAGAR, BENGLAURU.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. RAWLEY MUDDAPPA I.P., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2021 IN COM.O.S.NO.350/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 89^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-90) AT BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition by the defendant in Com.O.S. No. 350/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 passed on I.A. No.II by LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'Trial Court') whereby the said application filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order XI Rule 5 of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permission to produce additional documents was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:23361 WP No. 866 of 2022

¶27

The material on record discloses that the respondent – plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners – defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,36,720/- together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the petitioners – defendants. Prior to commencement of trial, the respondent – plaintiff filed the instant application seeking permission to produce additional documents which were not produced along with the plaint on the ground that the same was not in their custody at the time of filing the suit and became available only later. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by coming to the conclusion that the documents were relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and that since petitioners would be entitled to impeach and challenge the said documents, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the respondent – plaintiff was permitted to produce the said document, particularly, when the trial in the suit had not yet commenced.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:23361 WP No. 866 of 2022

¶30

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discretion exercised correctly by the Trial Court in permitting the respondent – plaintiff to produce documents prior to commencement of trial, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order that has resulted in mis-carriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in ( 2015) 5 SCC 423. Accordingly, I do not find any merit and petition is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

HNM

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

M/S Kavveri Telecom Products Limited v. M/S Pota Global Logistics India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kavveri Telecom Products Limited v. M/S Pota Global Logistics India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athmananda Trust Vs Union of India

Sri Puttaiah Vs Sri Shivamurthy

Official Liquidator of Vs Sri Tapan Senapathy

T M Sundarrajan Vs Sri J Achuthananda

Sri Sahil Vazirally Vs Sri M Ramkrishna

Sri Vasantha Kumar Vs M v Mahesh