M Earanna Vs Iqbal Hussain

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARUN A. GADAG, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OF LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 ON IA-VI IN COM.OS NO.03/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, RAICHUR AS PER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

¶21

Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order that is passed by the Commercial Court, Raichur on I.A.No.VI in Commercial O.S.No.3/2023 dated 31.01.2025, the present writ petition is filed.

¶22

Heard Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Arun A.Gadag, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed commercial suit against the petitioner seeking recovery of money projecting the version that the petitioner is due to him the suit amount as he worked as subcontractor of the petitioner and the petitioner failed to make payment for the work done by him. The petitioner filed his written statement duly stating that no amount is payable by him. Issues were framed. The respondent/plaintiff filed his

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶25

affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. The

¶26

respondent/plaintiff was cross-examined in part. At that time, the petitioner noticed that due to inadvertence, he did not plead in his written statement that the assets and liabilities were taken over by a company and therefore, the company alone is responsible to answer the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. On that, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement. However, the Court without any justifiable reason dismissed the application of the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel also contended that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff and further the company would be in better position to defend the claim. Learned counsel thereby sought to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order.

¶28

Vehemently opposing the submissions that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent contended that the suit pertains to series of contractual obligations wherein the petitioner as a Class-I

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶30

Contractor sub-contracted various works to the respondent. Learned counsel stated that the suit is based on the transactions that went on between 2012 and 2019. As per the version of the petitioner himself, the Company namely M/s.Meco Construction and Infratech Limited, came into existence in the year 2021. Further, no material is produced by the petitioner to show that said Company accepted the personal liabilities of the petitioner. The petitioner only with an intention to defeat the interests of the respondent/plaintiff and to protract litigation, filed an application for amendment of written statement. The proposed amendment neither answers the claim of the respondent/plaintiff nor is required for just disposal of the suit. Learned counsel also stated that claim is against the petitioner/defendant only and in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for any amount from the petitioner/defendant, it will dismiss the suit and indeed the respondent/plaintiff produced sufficient material before the commercial Court to show that he is entitled to the suit amount and that the said amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner/defendant alone and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶32

The proposed amendment itself goes to show that M/s. Meco Construction and Infratech Limited started its operations from 07.09.2021. The version of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioner subcontracted various works to him between 2012 and 2019 and the amount that fell due during the relevant period is liable to be paid by the petitioner/defendant. In the affidavit given in support of the application filed i.e., I.A.No.VI, the petitioner/defendant made a clear mention that he was carrying out contract work in his individual name as Class-I Contractor with PWD registered licence. The suit is filed for recovery of money, which according to respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant in his individual capacity is liable to pay. Having considered these facts and discussing at length with regard to the merits of the matter, the Commercial Court through the impugned order held that the proposed amendment is not essential for disposal of the suit. The Court at para 10 of the impugned order observed that when privity of contract was between the plaintiff and defendant only, then obviously, it is the defendant alone who is competent to answer the claim of the plaintiff. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon the decision that is

¶33

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶34

rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another, reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498, wherein the Court at para 15 of the judgment held that the amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are no necessarily governed by exactly the same principles, yet in the case on hand, the Commercial Court came to a just conclusion that the proposed amendment is not essential for disposal of the case on merits, as the claim is against the defendant only and the entire version of the plaintiff is that the defendant is personally liable to answer the claim.

¶35

The Court at para 9 of the impugned order clearly held that the defendant failed to produce any documents that all his liabilities which were existing prior to 07.09.2021 including the suit liabilities were taken over by the Company. Yet, even in this writ petition, the petitioner did not produce any sufficient proof at least prima facie to that effect. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, when the suit claim is against the defendant and in case the Court is of the opinion that the defendant is not liable to pay the amount, the suit would be dismissed. Furthermore, no justifiable grounds are stated as to

¶36

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2088 WP No. 200605 of 2025

¶37

why the petitioner/defendant could not project proper defence through his written statement.

¶38

The Commercial Courts Act was legislated with a sole object of disposal of commercial disputes expeditiously and in a time bound manner. However, if there is requirement for amendment of pleadings, the Commercial Courts are bound to entertain the applications filed for amendment of pleadings and pass necessary orders. However, in the case on hand, the proposed amendment is not essential to decide the case on merits and answer the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Commercial Court

¶39

did not err in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of pleadings.

¶40

Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Sd/(Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

VNR,LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:NI

M Earanna v. Iqbal Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Earanna v. Iqbal Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshrath Vs Returning Officer and Ors.

Sri Venkateshwara Super Market Vs Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Maheboob Vs the Karnataka State Board Aukaf Bangalore and Anr.

Parvati Nurandappa Sahukar Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaveni Vs Deputy Commissioner

Nandamma Vs State of Karnataka