Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56679 (KAR)

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD v. M/S DURGAMBA TRAVELS

WP/2744/2022 · 2025-09-25

K Manmadha Rao

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2744 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD BANKING COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHAVEERA CIRCLE MANGALURU AND A BRANCH OFFICE AMONGST OTHER PLACES AT KODIALBAIL MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER KODIALBAIL BRANCH MANGALURU 575003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S DURGAMBA TRAVELS BY PROPRIETOR MR. VINAY RANJAN B.K AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O KORGE B DR. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN K.S. RAO ROAD, MANGALURU 575003 PRESENTLY AT MR. VINAY RANJAN B.K S/O KORGE B AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. B-15-16/860(5) HARIKRUPA COMPOUND MANGALORE 575003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAY KASHYAP S., ADVOCATE) ® - 2 - THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K., MANGALURU DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED IN I.A.NO.7 FILED IN COM.O.S.NO.17/2021 ANNEXURE-E HEREIN AND SEEKING TO ALLOW THE IA NO.7 ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.VII filed in Com.O.S.No.17/2021 on the file of the First Addl. District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru (‘the Commercial Court’ for short). 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Commercial Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Commercial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that:- The second respondent-Mr.Vinay Ranjan B.K., who is running a transport business as a sole proprietor under the - 3 - name and style of M/s Durgamba Travels, availed an overdraft facility of Rs.3,50,000/- under Loan Account No.4767000600013101 and a term loan of Rs.2,50,000/- under Loan Account No.47670001800054801 dated 14.02.2014 for the purpose of transportation business. In this regard, the respondents executed necessary loan documents in favour of the petitioner-Bank on 17.12.2014 and 16.02.2015 respectively and acknowledged their liability in writing on 11.10.2017. 4. The respondents, failed to repay the loan amounts in terms of the loan documents. Hence, the said loan was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 15.04.2016. As on 05.01.2021, the respondents were due a sum of Rs.6,57,869/- in respect of the overdraft facility with further interest at 9.9% from 01.11.2020 and Rs.3,34,918/- in respect of the term loan with further interest at 9.9% from 17.11.2020, aggregating to Rs.9,92,787/-. Consequently, the petitioner instituted Commercial O.S.No.17/2021 before the Commercial Court, - 4 - Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada for recovery of the said sum with further interest and costs. 5. The respondents entered appearance in the said suit and admitted the availing of the overdraft facility of Rs.3,50,000/- as well as the term loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, but denied execution of the acknowledgment dated 11.10.2017 and also disputed the correctness of the outstanding amount of Rs.9,92,787/-. They further contended that on account of ill-health they were unable to repay the dues, which fact had been informed to the petitioner-Bank. 6. On 03.09.2021, the petitioner filed four additional documents along with an application under Order XI Rule 5 of the Commercial Courts Act, supported by an affidavit setting forth the circumstances under which such documents were required to establish the claim. The respondents filed their objections contending that the said documents were concocted and that the petitioner had already produced all the documents at the time of filing of - 5 - the case, thereby denying the averments contained in the petitioner’s affidavit. 7. The Commercial Court, after hearing both sides, by order dated 30.09.2021, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on I.A.No.7 in Com.O.S.No.17/2021. 8. The Commercial Court held as under:- 11. Thus in view of the said statement it can be said that plaintiff has produced entire documents pertaining to the case before the court and he doesn't have any documents in his possession or custody or control. When such being the case how these documents are now come into his possession is also not explained. On the other hand as rightly argued by the counsel for the defendant that all these documents are fabricated by the plaintiff in order to negate the admissions elicited from the mouth of PW.1 cannot be ruled out. 12. ……..this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has not shown any reasonable cause for non-production of the documents or copies thereof along with plaint. Per contra as these documents are in the possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit and as it is not the case of the plaintiff that suit was filed in urgency and therefore he could not produce these documents along with the plaint, the plaintiff is - 6 - prevented from production of additional documents. Accordingly this point is held in the negative. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the order dated 30.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.7 and to allow the said application, so as to permit production of the documents in the interest of justice. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the documents sought to be produced, particularly the payment slip dated 11.10.2017 being the cash deposit challan issued by the respondents at the time of acknowledgment of debt, were directly elicited during cross-examination by the defendants themselves. Hence, their production was necessary to place complete evidence before the Court. 11. It is further contended that the Commercial Court failed to note that the payment challans dated 11.10.2017 were essential for establishing the acknowledgment of debt, and that rejection of their - 7 - production has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. The reliance placed by the Commercial Court on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. reported in LL 2021 SC 458 was misapplied, as the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the ordinary course of banking practice, only relevant documents are filed at the time of suit, and in the present matter, the additional documents became necessary solely due to the queries raised by the respondents in the cross-examination. 12. It is also contended that the order dated 30.09.2021 has been passed mechanically, without adherence to the principles of justice, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the documents were received on record. On the contrary, serious injustice would result to the petitioner if such production is denied. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. - 8 - 14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. reported in LL 2021 SC 458:- 9.5. Order 11 Rule 1(5) further provides that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint. Therefore on combined reading of Order 11 Rule 1(4) read with Order 11 Rule 1(5), it emerges that (i) in case of urgent filings the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii) within thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. 9.6. Therefore a further thirty days' time is provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file such additional documents in court and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff as was required as per Order 11 Rule 1(3) if for any reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint, the documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or - 9 - custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore the plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. However, at the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore Order 11 Rule 1(4) and Order 11 Rule 1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint. 10.4. Now, so far as the other documents sought to be relied on/produced as additional documents other than the invoices are concerned the same stands on different footing. It is not disputed and in fact it was specifically admitted and so stated in the application that those additional documents other than the invoices were in their possession but not produced being voluminous and that the suit was filed urgently. However, it is to be noted that when the second - 10 - suit was filed, it cannot be said to be urgent filing of the suit for injunction, as the first suit was filed in the month of October 2018 and there was an ex parte ad interim injunction vide order dated 29-10- 2018 and thereafter the plaintiff withdrew the said the first suit on 27-7-2019 with liberty to file a fresh suit as per the Commercial Courts Act and the second suit came to be filed on 31-8-2019 after period of one month of the withdrawal of the first suit. Therefore the case on behalf of the plaintiff that when the second suit was filed, it was urgently filed therefore, the additional documents sought to be relied upon other than the invoices were not filed as the same were voluminous cannot be accepted. And therefore as such Order 11 Rule 1(4) shall not be applicable, though the application was filed within thirty days of filing of the second suit. While seeking leave of the court to rely on documents, which were in his power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out in Order 11 Rule 1(4), the plaintiff has to establish the reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. 15. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the material placed on record on perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the - 11 - case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan’s case, it appears that the Trial Court has not properly considered I.A.No.VII and went on to reject the application based on the fact that the plaintiff has not shown any reasonable cause for non production of the document or copies thereof along with the plaint. It is not the case of the plaintiff that non production of documents at the time of filing of the suit, it is the case of filing application under Order XI Rule 5(1) of Commercial Courts Act, ie., production of documents, it reveals that any party to the proceeding may seek or the Court may order, at any time during the pendency of any suit, production by any party or person, of such documents under possession or power of such party or person, relating to any matter in question in such suit. It appears that the Trial Court miserably failed to consider that the I.A.VII is filed under Order XI Rule 5(1) of Commercial Courts Act, the provision clearly reveals that during the pendency of the any suit, production by any party or person, relating to any matter in question in the suit. In the present case, the respondent in their cross - 12 - examination of PW1, specifically asked the question regarding production payment slips in respect of transaction dated 11.07.2017 and the same was replied by the petitioner that if available it can be produced. In furtherance of the cross examination of PW1 only, I.A.No.VII was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. 16. In view of the above discussions, this Court intends to interfere in this writ petition and to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.VII in Com.O.S.No.17/2021 and further directed to receive the documents to answer the justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH CT:NJ