Mr Shylaja Iyer v. M/S Brookfield Technologies Private Limited

NC:(2026:KHC:17773( WP(No.(18416(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(18416(OF(2024((GM-CPC)( BETWEEN:(( MRS,SHYLAJA,IYER, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, W/O,RAVINDRA,IYER, STR/AT,721/11,,41 ,,CROSS, 3RD,BLOCK,,RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU,,560,010., …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.DHANANJAY,V,JOSHI,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, SMT.,KAVITHA,DAMODARAN.,,ADVOCATE), AND:( M/S,BROOKEFIELD,TECHNOLOGIES,PRIVATE,LIMITED,

REGISTERED,,UNDER,THE,PROVISION,, OF,THE,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956, HAVING,ITS,REGISTERED,,OFFICE,AT,,

E,,1381,AECS,LAYOUT,,ITPL,ROAD, BROOKEFIELD,,BENGALURU,-37, Digitallytisignedtiby REP.,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR, DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY MR.,PAWAN,KUMAR,JAIN., Location:0H IGH …RESPONDENT, COURTOF KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,DHYAN,CHINNAPPA,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, SRI.,SUNDARA,RAMAN,M,V.,,ADVOCATE), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER,DATED,02/07/2024,(ON,IA,NO.,7,,IA,NO.,8,AND,IA,NO., 9),, PASSED, BY, THE, COURT, OF, THE, HONBLE, XVII, ADDL., DISTRICT,AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE,(CCH-16),AT,BANGALORE,,IN, OS,NO.,424,OF,2017,(ANNEXURE-A),AND,TO,PASS,ANY,SUCH, FURTHER,AND,OTHER,ORDERS,AND,DIRECTIONS,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has called in question the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'Trial Court'), on I.A.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC, I.A.No.8 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.9 filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, in O.S.No.424/2017, whereby the said applications have been dismissed.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶3The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.424/2017 before the Trial Court for recovery of money. On service of summons, defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the

parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Thereafter, the parties have adduced their evidence. After the completion of arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.7 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the order dated 24.07.2023 and to permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence; I.A.No.8 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking to reopen the stage and to permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence and I.A.No.9 under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC seeking to condone the delay in producing the documents to be filed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, by impugned order dated

02.07.2024, has dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

¶4Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner-plaintiff has submitted that during the cross-examination of PW-1, questions were put regarding certain bank transactions, though no such plea was taken in the written statement. To clarify the said aspect, the plaintiff seeks to

produce additional documents. It is further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the aforesaid applications are allowed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Nanjunda Setty @ N.S.Tallam and Others vs. M/s.Tallam Subbaraya Setty and Sons and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 924 and in the case of Sadar Mohd. Vs. Gram Panchayat Bansi & Ors. reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 3016.

¶5Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent-defendant has contended that the evidence of plaintiff (PW-1) has been completed on 03.06.2023 and the evidence of defendant has been completed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. After the completion of arguments, the said applications have been filed to fill up the omission in the evidence of the witness, who has already been examined. The same cannot be permitted under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. He further contented

that there is a delay in filing the applications. The evidence of PW1 has been completed on 03.06.2023 and the applications have been filed on

03.02.2024. The applications are filed seeking to only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. The same cannot be permitted and it will cause prejudice to the rights of the defendant. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410 and in the case of K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275.

¶6Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and writ papers.

¶7It is not in dispute that after completion of the arguments, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.7 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the order dated 24.07.2023 and to permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence;

I.A.No.8 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking to reopen the stage and to permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence and I.A.No.9 under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC seeking to condone the delay in producing the documents.

¶8The specific case of the plaintiff is that, during the cross-examination of PW-1 on

03.06.2023, certain questions were posed in relation to bank transactions involving a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- dated 05.11.2014 and Rs.25,67,500/- dated 17.11.2014. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW-1 is extracted hereinbelow: "¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤ 2014 jAzÀ 2016 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀgÀÆgÀÄ ªÉʱÀå ¨ÁåAQ£À°è SÁvÉ EvÀÄÛ. D CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåAQ£À CPËAmï C£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉÆà E®èªÉÇà FUÀ £É£À¦®è. ¸ÀzÀjÀ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvɬÄAzÀ £À£Àß SÁvÉUÉ ºÀt dªÀiÁ DUÀÄwÛvÉÆÛà E®èªÉÇà C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £É£À¦®è. ¤¦-1 ¸ÉÖÃmï ªÉÄAmï £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.11.2014 gÀAzÀÄ PÀgÀÆgÀÄ ªÉʱÀå ¨ÁåAQ¤AzÀ gÀÆ.20 ®PÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 17.11.2014 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ 25,67,500/- ºÀt £À£Àß SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÀt ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀA¥À¤¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶9A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant discloses that there is no averment whatsoever

with regard to the aforesaid transactions. It is only for the first time, during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, that such questions have been put forth. In that view of the matter, the petitioner-plaintiff seeks to clarify the said aspect by producing additional documents relating to the transactions in question.

¶10It is well settled, as held in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, that an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined and cross-examined. However, in the present case, the issue relating to the said transactions has arisen for the first time during the cross-examination of PW-1 and was not part of the original pleadings.

¶11In the absence of any prior pleading with respect to the said transactions, and considering that the said matter was introduced only during the cross-examination,

permitting the plaintiff to produce limited additional documents would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. Though there is a delay in filing of the applications and the same has not been satisfactorily explained, in the interest of justice and to afford a fair opportunity, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, subject to imposition of costs and appropriate conditions.

¶12Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC, I.A.No.8 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.9 filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, in O.S.No.424/2017, is hereby set aside.

c) The said applications are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the defendant on or before the next date of hearing in the Trial Court. d) The petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents and lead further evidence only in respect of the additional documents sought to be produced. However, he is not allowed to recall any witnesses. e) Liberty is reserved to the defendant to further cross-examine PW-1.

All pending I.As., if any, in this writ petition, are disposed of.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 78