Allowed

Mr Abhishek Poddar v. Mrkr Constructions and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/32151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Commercial Court order rejecting application to examine witness Ashish Kumar Bhartia. Held that order unsustainable as documents were admitted in evidence; pilot witness examination allowed with 2-month disposal timeline.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; Commercial Court directed to permit examination of Ashish Kumar Bhartia.

Mr Abhishek Poddar Vs Mrkr Constructions… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50978 WP No. 32151 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32151 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MR ABHISHEK PODDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SHREE GOPAL PODDAR

¶6

MRS. NAMITA JHUNJHUNWALA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SRI ABHISHEK PODDAR

¶7

BOTH RESIDING AT FLAT NO.401, 'H' BLOCK SALAPURIA EAST CREST, BENGALURU - 560 049

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRKR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.07 AT NO.8-2-268/1/D/A AURORA COLONY ROAD, NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-34 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. M.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50978 WP No. 32151 of 2024

¶14

M/S. MEDA GREENS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY. NO.101/1, VALAGERHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 060 REP. BY ITS PARTNER, MR.NISHANTH M

¶15

MR. NISHANTH M.REDDY MAJOR BY AGE, PARTNER M/S. MEDA GREENS, NO.32, 13TH MAIN ROAD, SHUBH ENCLAVE, HARALUR ROAD, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 102

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DTD 21.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 6 TO 8 IN COM OS NO. 336/2023 BY THE LEARNED LXXXVIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-89) VIDE ANNX-A ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:50978 WP No. 32151 of 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is directed against the rejection of the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the order by which the Commercial Court had held that the evidence of the plaintiffs’ was closed and also for permission to examine the witness to the MoU, construction agreement and the agreement of sale i.e., Ashish Kumar Bhartia.

¶25

The Commercial Court has rejected the application primarily on the ground that the witness to the MoU, construction agreement and sale agreement cannot be permitted to be examined, since the said documents had not been produced in evidence and without those documents being brought into evidence, oral evidence in respect of that document cannot be permitted.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, as a matter of fact, the MoU to which Ashish Kumar

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50978 WP No. 32151 of 2024

¶28

Bhartia was a party was produced and admitted into evidence and marked as Ex.P-8 and, therefore, the entire reasoning of the Commercial Court was incorrect.

¶29

In my view, since the deposition, which is produced before this Court, does establish that the MoU dated 20.03.2018 was admitted in evidence and marked as Ex.P-8, the basis of the Commercial Court’s order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Commercial Court is directed to permit the petitioners – plaintiffs to examine Ashish Kumar Bhartia, who is stated to be a witness to the MOU.

¶30

Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the 2023, the plaintiffs are directed to ensure that Ashish Kumar Bhartia is examined on the next date of hearing and no adjournment would be sought by the plaintiffs.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:50978 WP No. 32151 of 2024

¶33

The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the conclusion of the evidence of Ashish Kumar Bhartia. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶34

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶35

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mr Abhishek Poddar v. Mrkr Constructions and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abhishek Poddar v. Mrkr Constructions and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshminarayana Vs Divisional Manager

Lokesh R Vs Narasegowda

Kum Nischitha Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Taygeta Farms Vs Lourdes Alias Mohan

Smt. Gowri Gonda Vs Sri Nilesh Krishna Gonda

Sri Kotreshappa a Vs Oriental Assurance Co. Ltd.