- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.28250 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S HYTECHMACHINE TOOL AND AUTOMATION INDIA PVT LTD PLOT NO. 376 P AND 378 SOMAPUR 1ST STAGE SOMAPUR INDISTRIAL AREA NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 123 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI K M NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SMT.NEERAJA KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH S.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S HYTEC STEEL FOUNDRY (PVT) LTD PLOT NO, 376 P & 378 SOMAPUR 1ST STAGE SOMAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 123 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR ARUN NARAYAN SHETTY EMAIL hytechsteelfoundry@gmail.com … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RANJAN KUMAR .K., ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/ RESPONDENT ) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1/09/2025 ON I.A. NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 2 AND 3 R/W SEC.151 CPC AND I A NO. VII FILED UNDER SEC. 151 OF THE CPC IN COM O.S.NO.176/2023 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISITRICT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the common order dated 1.9.2025 on I.A. No.VI and VII in Commercial O.S. No.176/2023, whereby the Commercial Court dismissed both the applications. 3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the Commercial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in Commercial O.S. No.176/2025 against the petitioner/defendant for the relief of ejectment of defendant from the suit schedule property and to pay arrears of rent and the mesne profits and other consequential reliefs. 5. After completion of evidence, when the matter was posted for arguments on merits, at that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No.VI under Order XVI Rules 2 & 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the Chief Executive Officer or any authorized officer of KIADB as witness and I.A. No.VII under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 31.07.2025 for summoning authorized officer of KIADB as additional witness. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner/defendant that prior to filing of I.A. Nos.VI and VII, petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to implead KIADB as proposed defendant No.2 on the ground that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 respondent/plaintiff colluded with KIADB and got registered the lease-cum-sale agreement in its name without the consent of the original allottee. However, the said application came to be rejected by the order dated 29.10.2024. 6.1 It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside. It is also contended that there was no impediment for the Commercial Court to entertain an application summoning KIADB as a witness which would have in fact thrown light to the lis between the parties and for further effective adjudication of the matter. It is further contended that the Commercial Court has not considered all the relevant material facts and mechanically dismissed the applications without adverting to any of these facts and how these would aid in the Commercial Court adjudicating the matter. Having not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 done so, the impugned order is perverse and the same deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for caveator/respondent sustains the impugned order and submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed without further delay as the matter is now set down for arguments on the main matter and the applications are filed only with an intention to protract and prolong the matter without following the relevant provisions of the Commercial Court Act and the Rules. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for parties. 9. The points that would arise for consideration in the present writ petition are: i) Whether I.A. No.VI filed under Order XVI Rules 2 & 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the Chief Executive Officer or any authorized officer as witness and I.A. No.VII filed under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 31.07.2025 for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 summoning of KIADB as additional witness, deserve to be allowed ? ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is illegal and perverse calling for interference by this Court. 10. Apparently, it is seen that the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for ejectment and arrears of rent and mesne profits. The evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff as well as defendant. On the earlier occasion, the defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to implead the very same KIADB as a party to the suit proceedings. The said application came to be rejected by the Commercial Court vide its order dated 29.10.2024. The same is not questioned and it has attained finality. Now after the evidence is completed, the defendant has filed the present two applications seeking to summon the Chief Executive Officer or any authorized officer of KIADB as an additional witness to establish his counter-claim for declaration that the defendant is the original allottee. The Commercial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner and the respondents, extracted the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure invoked by the petitioner, the relevance of summoning of either the Chief Executive Officer or any other authorized officer of KIADB as an additional witness, but did not agree with the submissions putforth by the petitioner and accordingly dismissed both the applications. 11. It is needless to mention that the object of the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act has been dealt with by the trial Court in the impugned order at paragraph-11. At the cost of repetition, the object of the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act by the Legislature is to see that a quick and speedy decision is rendered in all commercial disputes. 12. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the judgment in Shri Radha Enterprises & Another -vs- M/s Tandoori Vibes through its partner Md. Zainul reported in 2023 O Supreme (Del) 3889 and so also the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 judgment in Sudhir Kumar -vs- Vinay Kumar reported in (2021) 13 SCC 71, wherein the Apex Court held that reasonable cause necessarily must refer to a cause which was beyond the control of the party, which prevented him from stating while filing the application. 13. In the present case, the petitioner/defendant has not cited the KIADB as a witness in the list of witnesses. In the case on hand, the evidence has already been completed and the matter is set down for arguments on merits. 14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (Government of Karnataka Undertaking), K.R. Circle, Bengaluru and others -vs- A Prabhakara Reddy and another - 2024(1) Kar.L.J. 353 had the opportunity to decide the very same issue with regard to summoning the witness and adducing further evidence and the Court framed the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 points for consideration at paragraph-8 of the judgment, which read as under: " 8. The points that would arise for consideration in the present matter are: i) Whether a Commercial Court can in light of Order 18 Rule 4(1-A) permit a party to lead fresh evidence after the matter is posted for arguments when the witness have not been named in the list of witnesses and the affidavit has not been filed as per the Calender of dates fixed under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Court Act, 2015? ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at the hands of this Court? iii) Whether in view of Section 8 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, the present writ petition is maintainable? iv) What Order?" - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 15. In the judgment stated supra, the Coordinate Bench answered the point No.1 at paragraph-10.12, which reads as under: "10.12 Thus I answer point no.1 by holding that a Commercial Court cannot in light of Order 18 Rule 4(1A) permit a party to lead fresh evidence after the matter is posted for arguments when the witness has not been named in the list of witnesses and the affidavit has not been filed as per the Calendar of dates fixed under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Court Act, 2015, except if sufficient grounds is made out for the same. Unless exceptional grounds are made out for allowing further evidence or examination of further witness in terms of Sub rule (1B) of Rule (4) of Order 18 of CPC, the Commercial court cannot permit a person who is not named in the list of witnesses and whose affidavit has not been filed in the time stipulated under Order 15A of CPC cannot be permitted to lead his evidence by filing his affidavit." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 16. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 11.7 and 11.13 of the above judgment, which read as under: "11.7. It is a matter of fact and record that the plaintiff was not even named as witness. In terms of Sub-rule (1A) of Rule (4) of Order 18 of CPC all the affidavits of all the witnesses are required to be filed simultaneously. It is a matter of fact and record that affidavit of plaintiff was not filed along with the affidavit of Sri.P.Chandramouli. It is only when the matter was posted for arguments and after the defendant therein who is the petitioner herein has filed synopsis of arguments that the present application under Section 151 of CPC came to be filed. 11.13. As pointed above, the plaintiff was not named as a witness, a power of attorney was named as a witness, who has been examined, thus the requirement of Rule (2) of Order 15A not having been complied with and the requirement of Sub-rule (1A) of Rule (4) of Order 18 of CPC also not having been complied with, it is only in exceptional cases that in terms of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule (4) of Order 18 of CPC - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 an application to lead further evidence can be permitted." 17. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court stated supra and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly dismissed I.A. No.VI and I.A. No.VII and the said applications cannot be considered when the evidence has already been completed and the matter being posted for arguments on merits. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper. 18. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to differ with the well reasoned order passed by the Commercial Court, neither does it call for interference by this Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40068 WP No. 28250 of 2025 19. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2