Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri M. Gouthamchand, was the plaintiff in Commercial O.S. No. 770/2023 before the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru. The respondent, Sri Sanjay Kumar, was the defendant. The suit was for recovery of money. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the defendant's evidence was also closed, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 under Section 151 CPC read with Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. I.A. No. 4 sought recall of PW-1 (the plaintiff himself) for cross-examination of the defendant on documents produced by the defendant. I.A. No. 5 sought re-opening of the plaintiff's case. I.A. No. 6 sought permission to produce additional documents. The trial court rejected all three applications by a common order dated 01.06.2024, holding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause for the delay and that the applications were filed belatedly. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court observed that the trial court had failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. The court noted that the plaintiff sought to recall PW-1 only for the purpose of cross-examining the defendant on documents that were already on record, and the defendant would not be prejudiced. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have allowed the applications to ensure a fair trial and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6, subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the defendant. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Re-opening of Case - Section 151 CPC, Order XI Rule 1(5) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The plaintiff sought recall of PW-1, re-opening of the case, and permission to produce additional documents after the defendant's evidence was closed. The trial court rejected the applications on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause and that the applications were filed belatedly. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the applications, as the plaintiff sought to cross-examine the defendant on documents that were already on record and the defendant would not be prejudiced. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the applications, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the defendant. (Paras 1-8)
B) Commercial Courts Act - Production of Additional Documents - Order XI Rule 1(5) - The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 6 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking permission to produce additional documents. The trial court rejected it on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause for not producing them earlier. The High Court held that the trial court should have allowed the application as the documents were already part of the record and the defendant would not be prejudiced. The High Court allowed the application subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's applications for recalling PW-1, re-opening the plaintiff's case, and permitting additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2024, and allowed I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 filed by the petitioner in Commercial O.S. No. 770/2023, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Recall of witness
- Re-opening of case
- Permission to produce additional documents
- Order XI Rule 1(5) Commercial Courts Act
- Section 151 CPC
- Inherent powers of court
- Opportunity of hearing
- Prejudice to opposite party
Case Details
WP No. 14983 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Sri G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Advocate for Sri Bharath M.R., Advocate (for petitioner); Sri Mithun G.A., Advocate (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging order rejecting applications for recall of witness, re-opening of case, and permission to produce additional documents in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Commercial Court on I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in Commercial O.S. No. 770/2023, and a direction to recall and reopen the stage of plaintiff's evidence and allow the said I.As.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his applications for recalling PW-1, re-opening the plaintiff's case, and permitting additional documents, which he claimed were necessary for effective cross-examination of the defendant.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court had rejected I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 by order dated 01.06.2024.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's applications for recall of PW-1, re-opening of the case, and permission to produce additional documents under Section 151 CPC and Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the applications, as the recall was only for cross-examining the defendant on documents already on record, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
The respondent opposed the applications, contending that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay and that the applications were filed belatedly.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the recall of a witness and re-opening of the case when the purpose is to cross-examine the opposite party on documents already on record, and no prejudice is caused to the other side. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not be used to defeat the cause of justice, and that the power under Section 151 CPC is available to secure the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in Commercial O.S.No.770/2023 by the Court of LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, the plaintiff therein has preferred this writ petition.
The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.4 to 6 before the Commercial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for recalling of PW-1, re-opening of the case of the plaintiff and seeking permission to produce additional documents.
The trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the applications, as the plaintiff sought to cross-examine the defendant on documents that were already on record and the defendant would not be prejudiced.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the applications, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the defendant.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Commercial O.S. No. 770/2023 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the defendant's evidence was also closed, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 on 01.06.2024 for recall of PW-1, re-opening of the plaintiff's case, and permission to produce additional documents. The Commercial Court rejected all three applications by a common order dated 01.06.2024. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard and disposed of on 19.06.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Order XI Rule 1(5)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
