Allowed

Sri. Ravikumar Rajendraprasad, v. M/S Biofi Medical Healthcare India Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026WP/1014/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in a patent/trademark suit challenged dismissal of their application to recall PW2 for further cross-examination after their counsel left out prepared questions. The High Court held the trial court acted hyper-technically, allowed recall given minimal delay, and directed time-bound completion of further cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.01.2024 on I.A.No.XI set aside; I.A.No.XI allowing recall of PW2 granted; further cross-examination directed to be concluded within a time-bound manner.

Sri. Ravikumar Rajendraprasad, Vs M/S Biofi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MR. RAJENDRAPRASAD RESDIING AT A602, CONFIDENT AQUILA YAMERE VILALGE, SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU - 562 125 PHONE 91 9880175670 RAVIKUMAR.RAJENDRAPRASAD@GMAILCOM

¶10

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MRS. AMRUTHADEVI RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. MR. RAJENDRAPRASAD RESDIING AT A602, CONFIDENT AQUILA YAMERE VILALGE, SARJAPUR ROAD

¶12

BENGALURU - 562 125

¶13

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH V.K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/S BIOFI MEDICAL HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LTD., LOCATED AT PLOT 208, BOMMASANDRA JIGANI LINK ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA BOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU 560 105 PHONE NO. +91 9731500776 REPRESENTED BY MR. BUJANGA RAO

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MR. PULDURAI SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SHANMUGAM NO.3/61, THIRMALAPURAM RAMANATHAPURA SIVAGIRI TIRUNELVELI TAMILNADU - 627 760 EMAIL ID: PAULDURAI @ GMAIL.COM PHONE NO. +91 9731500776 EARLIER RESPONDENT NO.1 REPRESENTED BY MR. PULDURAI SHANMUGAM

¶20

BUJANGA RAO K S/O KRISHNAMURHTY FORMER DIRECTOR, BIOFI AGED 40 YEARS NO. 207, HARSHITA SERENITY IPS COLONY DODDAKAMMANAHALLI LINK ROAD GOTTIGERE BANGALORE - 560 083 EMAIL ID BUJANGA [email protected] PHONE NO. +91 9902164466 RESPONDENT NO.1 EARLIER REPRESENTED BY MR. PULDURAI SHANMUGAM

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. LOKESH K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2026)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE IA -XI ORDER VIDE ANN-A DATED 04/01/2024 AND IA-XIII ANN-B DATED 24/04/2024 IN OS 2/2021 PASSED BY HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XI filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.2/2021 dated 04.01.2024 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru, whereby the said application came to be dismissed, the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, are before this Court.

¶30

The suit is filed seeking, declaration that the assignment deed dated 30.07.2021 or any other document executed by the first defendant as Signatory of the plaintiff Company in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 with respect to patent, design and trademark of the plaintiff as per suit schedule A, B and C properties are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff; Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, ITS employees, servant, agents or any other Persons acting or claiming under them in whatsoever capacity from carrying on

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing, distributing and in any manner trading with products, goods or services embodying the patent/design/mark/name/label with similar name; and Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to render true and correct accounts of the sales of products.

¶35

In the said suit, the cross examination of the plaintiff was completed on 28.07.2022. Thereafter, the present application came to be filed seeking recall of PW2 for further cross-examination. In support of the application, it is stated that PW1, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff company, was not a competent person as he is not having personal knowledge with regard to the facts to which he has deposed. He has suppressed several material facts and in order to bring out the same, they have prepared a list of 200 questions to be asked to PW2 and gave it to their counsel. However, the previous counsel failed to ask any of these questions to PW2 at the time of cross-examination. Hence, the present application was filed seeking recall of the witness.

¶36

The Trial Court, by order impugned, dismissed the

¶37

application. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court has

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

observed that the Courts can use this discretionary power to recall a particular witness for further cross-examination depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Unless it is satisfied with either the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, no discretionary powers can be exercised, either to reopen the case or recall the witnesses. This PW2 had already been cross-examined at length and the reasons assigned by the defendant were that the 200 questions were left out by his counsel, without disclosing the particulars of those 200 questions. It is not reasonable to recall PW2 by exercising the discretionary power under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC. Even the ground urged by the defendants for recalling PW2 was already covered at the time of examination as well as cross-examination of PW2. Hence, question of recalling PW2 on the ground urged by the defendants, cannot be considered.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given detailed reasons on why PW2 has to be recalled for further cross-examination. The court, without

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

considering the same, has dismissed the application on technical grounds.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioners are filing multiple applications only to drag on the proceedings before the Court and the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record.

¶48

The cross-examination of PWS was completed on 19.08.2023. Thereafter, on 21.02.2024, the defendants filed I.A.No.XI seeking recall of PW2 for further cross examination that came to be dismissed by order impugned. This Court has perused the reasons that are given by the Trial Court. It is observed that PW2 had already been cross-examined and the reasons assigned by the defendants that 200 more questions were left out by the counsel without disclosing the particulars of those 200 questions, is not satisfactory and it is not feasible to recall PW2 by exercising the discretionary power. When an application is filed, the Court has to look at the same in the substantial interest of justice but should not look at it in a

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

hyper technical manner. The cross-examination was completed on 19.08.2023 and on 21.02.2024, this application was filed. There is not much delay and in the interest of the parties, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶53

However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are making frivolous privilege applications one after the another, it is made clear that the trial Court shall conclude the further cross-examination within a time-bound manner.

¶54

In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 04.01.2024 passed on I.A. No.XI filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.2/2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and consequently, I.A. No.XI stands allowed .

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29102 WP No. 1014 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ii. The Trial Court shall conclude the further cross-examination within a time-bound manner.

¶61

iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶63

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri. Ravikumar Rajendraprasad, v. M/S Biofi Medical Healthcare India Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ravikumar Rajendraprasad, v. M/S Biofi Medical Healthcare India Private 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

Madhu Vs Sri Lava K

North Roof Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr H R Suresh

Smt. v. Lalitha Vs Sri. K. H. Puttaswamy Gowda

Smt.Roopa Vs Smt.Ammayya

Sophila Kennedy Vs National Trust Finance Limited

Sri Pamod H v Vs Smt B.A. Rathnamma