M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Timbers Vs M/S Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 20730 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TIMBERS VENKATESHWARA TIMBERS REP BY ITS PRORIETOR VENKATESH REDDY SITUATED AT SY NO.38 ANCHAPALYA (SRIKANTAURA) DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH - 560 073 R/AT NO.978, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, K N LAYOUT YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU - 560 022 THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T, ADV., FOR

¶10

SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.)

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES MAVINAKTTE, VAMAPADAVU BANTWAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER FIRST PARTNER T. VARADARAJ PAI S/O T RAGHUANTH PAI VAMAPPADAVU, MAVINAKATTE POST BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 374.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAK KAMATH K, ADV., FOR R-1)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORDER AT ANNEXURE -E DATED 05/07/2023 IN COMMERCIAL O.S. 190/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND COMMERVICAL COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU ON IA AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 05.07.2023 passed on an application

¶25

filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in Com. OS. No.190/2021 by the Court of I Addl. District Judge and Commercial Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

Com. OS. No.190/2021 is filed before the jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mangaluru by respondent herein with a prayer to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from the date of borrowing till realisation. In the said suit, petitioner herein who is the sole defendant has filed his written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

recording plaintiff's evidence, application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant with a prayer to amend his written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application filed on behalf of the defendant. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence taken by the petitioner in his written statement. Petitioner has not sought to withdraw any admissions made in the written statement. In the proposed amendment, transaction between the plaintiff and the sister of the petitioner, who is the proprietor of PAC International is sought to be explained. Except the same, no other change is being introduced in the written statement. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in dismissing the application.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits

¶36

that there is no truth in the averments now made in the proposed paragraph which is sought to be incorporated in the written statement of the petitioner. He submits that, sister of the petitioner had earlier filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC before the Trial Court to implead her as party defendant in the suit and said the application was dismissed. The same was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in WP No.2695/2022. Application is filed belatedly after trial had commenced and therefore, in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit is filed with a prayer to direct defendant/petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,00,000/- with interest. The petitioner has filed detailed written statement opposing the suit claim and he has raised a contention that transaction was between the plaintiff and his sister Smt. Latha, who is the proprietar of PAC International and therefore, the petitioner is not due to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The proposed

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

amendment which is sought to be incorporated at the end of paragraph No.18 of the written statement reads as follows:-

¶42

"It is submitted that the Plaintiff is deliberately with dishonest intention has suppressed about the transaction with Smt. Latha, proprietor of PAC International, who is the sister of this Defendant. In fact, a sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Lakh Only) credited by the Plaintiff on 23-03-2018 was refunded by PAC International to the Plaintiff herein on 26-03-2018. No doubt, the Plaintiff once again credited a sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/-Rupees Two Crore Twenty Lakh Only) on the very same day, to the account of this Defendant. In fact, the said payment was made towards the transaction carried out by Smt. Latha, proprietor of PAC International with the Plaintiff herein. The amount so credited to the account of this Defendant was later adjusted to the accounts of PAC International. The same was done with the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff herein. In fact, the Plaintiff owe principal sum of Rs. 1,69,99,862/(Rupees One Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two Only) with proportionate interest and damages to PAC International towards various transactions between them. Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- Rupees Two Crore Twenty Lakh Only) credited to the account of this Defendant is liable to be adjusted and set off to the amount payable by the Plaintiff to Smt. Latha, proprietor of PAC International. The Plaintiff in order to avoid payment of the said outstanding amount due is suppressing the true facts and has filed the

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

present suit and made false claim as against this Defendant. In view of the aforementioned facts, the Defendant is not liable to make payment of any amount much less a sum of Rs. 6,79,22,740/- claimed by the Plaintiff as against this Defendant and the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed."

¶47

From a reading of the proposed amendment, it is apparent that defendant intends to explain the transaction of the plaintiff with his sister Smt. Latha, proprietor of PAC International. The proposed amendment does not amount to withdrawal of any admission by the defendant in his written statement nor does it even change the nature of defence taken by him.

¶48

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶49

B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS PARAMESWARAN PILLAI &

¶50

ANOTHER - (2000)1 SCC 712 , has observed that though the principles to be followed is applicable for amendment of plaint as well as written statement equally, since the prejudice that is likely to be caused is less in case of amendment of written statement, courts are required to be more liberal in permitting such amendments.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - 2022 SCCOnline SC 1128 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts should avoid a hyper technical approach while considering an application seeking amendment of pleadings more so, when the same would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶55

The Trial Court has proceeded to consider the application on merits which is not permissible. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC does not completely bar filing of an application for amendment after the trial in the suit has commenced. Any inconvenience caused to the other side can always be compensated monetarily. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the defendant to amend his written statement. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶56

The writ petition is allowed . The order dated 05.07.2023 passed on an application filed on behalf of petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in Com. OS. No.190/2021 by the Court of I Addl. District Judge and

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:47930 WP No. 20730 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Commercial Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, is set-aside. Consequently, the prayer made in the said application is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶61

The cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶62

Since the suit is of the year 2021, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and dispose off the same on merits as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶63

In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off.

¶64

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶65

DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Timbers v. M/S Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Timbers v. M/S Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Mani Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Chawla Interbild Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Radha Vs Muniyamma

Sri Mehboob Khan @ Naseem Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Shivappa

Sri. Y M Yathish Vs Smt. Renukamma