Mr N Anantha Padmanabha Vs Bank Employees Welfare… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr N Anantha Padmanabha Vs Bank Employees Welfare… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: the Trial Court's order dated 14.09.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.27149/2010 is upheld (prayer to quash not acceded to), subject to the plaintiff (respondent No.1) paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants; I.A.No.1/2021 would not survive for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.27149/2010 - recalling its order dated 12.11.2014 and permitting PW1 to lead further evidence and produce additional documents - at a stage when the defendants' evidence, including full cross-examination of DW1, had been completed. +1 more

Court's answer

The Trial Court is fully justified in allowing the applications (I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5), considering the averments in the accompanying affidavit and that the documents are claimed to be necessary for adjudication of the dispute.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of upholding the Trial Court's order by allowing I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5, subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants for the lapse and inconvenience caused by filing the applications after the trial evidence, including cross-examination of DW1, had concluded.

Key takeaways

In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2021 would not survive for consideration.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (Art. 227 Constitution, GM-CPC) by Mr. N Anantha Padmanabha, defendant in O.S.No.27149/2010 (plaintiff: Bank Employees Welfare Forum, represented by Mr. A. Raju, President), challenging the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-21), Mayo Hall's order dt. 14.09.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.3-5 - under Order 18 Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC - to recall its order dt. 12.11.2014, let PW1 lead further evidence and produce additional documents, although the defendants' evidence and DW1's cross-examination had concluded. Karnataka HC (Vijaykumar A. Patil J.) held the Trial Court fully justified in allowing the applications (documents claimed necessary for adjudication of the dispute), but, for the lapse and inconvenience caused by the late filing, upheld the order on terms: writ disposed of with I.A.Nos.3-5 allowed subject to the plaintiff paying Rs.10,000/- costs to the defendants; I.A.No.1/2021 would not survive for consideration. No precedent was engaged with in this short oral order.

NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17112 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR N ANANTHA PADMANABHA S/O MR NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.90 IST MAIN ROAD IST FLOOR NURPATHUNGA NAGARA KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD J P NAGAR 8^TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 076. .. PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE FORUM SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH NO.20, 9TH MAIN ROAD COURT OF 3RD BLOCK KARNATAKA JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011 REPRESENTED BY MR A RAJU PRESIDENT

SMT K S SUMATHI HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.663 SURABHI 6^TH MAIN, RBI LAYOUT J P NAGAR 7^TH PHASE

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

HC-KAR

BANGALORE-560 078. .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH BABU N., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 14.9.2021 ALLOWING IA NO.3 (APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 READ WITH 151 OF CPC FOR RECALLING ORDER DTD.12.11.2014 ANNEXURE-F IN O.S.NO.27149/2010 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-21) MAYO HALL (IN CHARGE 20) AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE W.P., ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.27149/2010 by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-21), Mayo Hall, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short).

Sri.B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are the defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking for a declaration and

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

HC-KAR

other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff has adduced the evidence. Thereafter, the defendants have completed evidence and DW1 was fully cross-examined. Thereafter, the applications were filed seeking to reopen the evidence of PW1, the said application was allowed and PW1 was permitted to adduce further evidence and for production of documents. It is contended that the said applications were filed on a particular day and all the applications were allowed without even hearing the petitioner. It is further submitted that the documents now intended to be produced were very much available with the plaintiff when the suit was filed and evidence was adduced. Hence, the question of showing any leniency to the petitioner would not arise. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and dragging the proceedings further. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, Sri. Ramesh Babu. N, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that there

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

HC-KAR

was a change of counsel, and upon noticing that some of the important aspects were not covered in the evidence of PW1, the applications were filed to adduce further evidence and to produce the documents. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

The respondent has filed a suit for declaration

that the plaintiff-society being run by the Executive Committee presently consisting of Sri. A. Raju as the President and other prayers. In the said suit, the defendants have filed a detailed written statement. The plaintiff has adduced evidence, and the defendants have also concluded their evidence. DW1 was fully crossexamined. At that stage, the plaintiff filed three applications i.e., I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 seeking to recall the order dated 12.11.2014 by permitting PW1 to lead further evidence and to produce additional documents. By the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

HC-KAR

impugned order, the Trial Court allowed all the three applications.

It is to be noticed that the affidavit accompanying the applications indicates that the documents now intended to be produced are claimed to have been filed before the Court along with filing of the suit. However, they were not marked at the time of examination in-chief of PW1. The deponent has also stated that some of the important aspects were not covered in his evidence and that, in view of change of counsel, on noticing such lapse, the applications were filed. It is further stated that the said documents are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

Considering the averments in the affidavit and

taking note of the fact that the documents are claimed to be necessary for adjudication of the dispute. I am of the view that the Trial Court is fully justified in allowing the applications. However, this Court cannot ignore the aspect

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021

HC-KAR

that when the trial was concluded and cross-examination

of DW1 was over at the time, these applications came to be filed. For such a lapse and inconvenience caused to petitioner, the order of the Trial Court is required to be upheld on certain terms.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the order of the Trial Court by allowing the I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants.

In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2021 would not

survive for consideration.

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8