Mr Keradi Chandrashekar Shetty Vs Sri R Arun

SRI R ARUN S/O LATE RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST MAIN ROAD, GARUDACHARPALYA, NEXT TO ANANTHARAMAIAH’S HOUSE, WHITEFIELD ROAD BENGALURU 560048 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALIDARA R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30999 WP No. 22159 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 21.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-83) COMMERCIAL COURT BENGALURU IN COM.O.S.NO. 1698/2024 (ANNX-A). DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE REASONABLE TIME FROM CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING TO COMPLETE THE TRIAL.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the defendant in Com.O.S.No.1698/2024 pending on the file of LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-83), Commercial Court, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the trial Court in exercise of its power conferred under Order XV A of CPC.

¶22

The only grievance urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that:

¶23

The schedule fixed by the trial Court for disposal of the suit is so narrow and the same runs contrary to the very provision which provides for 6 months period of disposal. He submits that the schedule indicates that the

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30999 WP No. 22159 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

suit would be disposed of within a period of 20 days, providing an extremely short duration for the petitioner /defendant for cross-examination of the plaintiff witness and to submit his evidence.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties under the provisions providing for case management in CPC. He submits that the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter inasmuch as the issue involved is only on the tenancy based on admitted facts in the matter. He submits that the order passed does

¶28

not suffer from any irregularity or error in jurisdiction requiring interference at the hands of this Court.

¶29

Heard and perused the records.

¶30

There is no dispute about the fact that the order

¶31

passed by the trial Court is as contemplated under the provisions of Order XV A of CPC, providing for case management, requiring fixing of the schedule for the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30999 WP No. 22159 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

conduct of the case. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been provided the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on 02.08.2025 and 06.08.2025, and

¶35

for the purpose of filing the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the defendant and after crossexamination of the defendant, the matter is scheduled to be heard on merits on 18.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time period provided to the petitioner/defendant is extremely short, within which he will not be able to place his case effectively.

¶36

Heard and perused the record.

¶37

It is appropriate to refer to Clause (c) Sub Rule

¶38

6 of Order XV A, which reads as under:

¶39

“6. Power of the Court in a Case Management Hearing:

¶40

(c) extend or shorten the time for compliance with any practice, direction or Court order if it finds sufficient reason to do so”.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30999 WP No. 22159 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In the light of the aforesaid provision provided

¶44

under CPC, it is open for the petitioner to seek extension of time, if any, which will be considered by the trial Court, subject to sufficient reasons being assigned by the parties. Since the aforesaid provision provides and vests the jurisdiction of the trial Court to consider request for extension of time, the grievance of the petitioner can well be canvassed before the trial Court and there is no need for interference with the schedule fixed by the trial Court, at this juncture.

¶45

It is made clear that if any application is filed by the petitioner for extension of time under the provisions referred to above, the same shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law, keeping in mind the purpose of said provision. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46