- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4777 WP No. 107372 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 107372 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: CHANNABASAVESHWAR AGRO TRADERS, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. KUBERAPPA S/O SHIVAMURTEPPA MARGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. MANJUNATH S/O SHIVAMURTEPPA MARGI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAIN ROAD, AT NAIKLAKAMAPUR (HOSUR), AT POST KABBUR-581 110, TAL: AND DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND.A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SURYA AGRO AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. SANJIV S/O MULRAJ THAKKAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O: KESHWAPUR, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 023. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.S.NIRANJAN., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4777 WP No. 107372 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Srinand A.Pachhapure., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.S.Niranjan., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, on I.A.No.XI in Commercial O.S.No.9/2021 vide Annexure-A is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the money. After service of the notice, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a detailed written statement and the Court framed two issues. The GPA Holder of the defendant’s trader was examined as DW1. After the completion of his cross- examination, the case was posted for arguments. It is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4777 WP No. 107372 of 2024 significant to note that the defendant did not file a list of witnesses. At a later stage, he applied to the Court and sought permission to lead further evidence and for the issuance of summons to the proposed witnesses. It is pivotal to note that the case was posted for arguments, the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. 5. The Commercial Courts Act has been enacted with the object of having streamlined procedure that is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts. The specific object is to bring about a positive change and the speedy disposal of the commercial disputes. The present case is also a commercial dispute and the Court must decide the same at the earliest. Needless to say, the parties to commercial disputes should not drag on the proceedings and must co- operate for the speedy disposal of the case. In my view, the rejection just and proper. 6. Resultantly, the Writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 58