- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1985 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI ANSHUL AGARWAL S/O. S.N. GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT B 159, VAISHALI NAGAR, NEAR NATIONAL HANDLOOM-302021 JAIPUR RAJASTHAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. INNOVITI TECHNEOLGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING OFFICE AT TOWER C, 2ND FLOOR, DIAMOND DISTRICT, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560008 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASHANTH V.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2025, PASSED IN O.S.NO.3013/2023 ONT HE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This regular first appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025 in O.S No.3013/2023 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 43) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court partly decreed the plaintiff’s suit, restraining the defendant from using plaintiff’s confidential information, from defaming the plaintiff or its employees, and from causing nuisance by way of permanent injunction. The reliefs of mandatory injunction and future damages were refused. 3. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 Brief facts: 4. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, who was employed with the plaintiff under an offer letter dated 10.07.2021, had indulged in misconduct. On account of certain allegations, the plaintiff issued a termination notice dated 18.12.2022. It was alleged that during the course of employment, the defendant started a parallel business under the name and style of ‘Peperstreet’ and misused the plaintiff’s confidential information. Forensic enquiry revealed that on 19.12.2022, the defendant had downloaded multiple confidential files belonging to the plaintiff. Fearing misuse of such data and defamatory action, the plaintiff approached with the present suit. 5. The defendant, in his written statement, admitted his employment and termination but denied - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 allegation of misconduct, misappropriation, or misuse of confidential information. 6. The Trial Court framed issues on the pleadings. To prove its case, the authorized person of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P22. The defendant neither cross examined P.W.1 nor entered the witness box. Ultimately, the Trial Court, partly decreed the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, submits that as per the order sheet in O.S. No.3013/2014 dated 25.09.2024, both parties and their counsel were present and since there was a possibility of settlement, the matter was referred to mediation and adjourned to 08.01.2025. As settlement did not materialize, the matter was listed for cross-examination of P.W.1. On 05.06.2025, although P.W.1 was present, the defendant was absent, and Trial Court treated cross-examination of P.W.1 and defence evidence as ‘Nil’, closing the stage of evidence. Thereafter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 the matter was posted for arguments, which the defendant did not address. Thus, the Trial Court proceeded to judgment. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court did not provide sufficient opportunity to the defendant and prays for remand. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the settlement talks cannot justify non- appearance of the defendant. The decree passed by the Trial Court, was limited to restraining the defendant from using confidential information or defaming the plaintiff. Hence, no interference is warranted, and the plea for remand is not bonafide. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that falls for consideration is: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant ought to be given an opportunity to put forth his defence?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 10. On perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that between 25.09.2024 and 05.06.2024, the matter was adjourned on multiple occasions, primarily for settlement and cross-examination of PW.1. On 05.06.2025, when PW.1 was present, the absence of the defendant led to closure of his right to cross-examine and adduce evidence. The case was taken up for arguments, which were also not advanced on behalf of the defendant. 11. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit without affording opportunity to the defendant. Since the order passed has the effect of permanent restraint, principles of natural justice required that he be given a fair chance to cross- examine and adduce evidence. 12. Considering that PW.1 is presently on maternity leave, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to examine another authorized representative, who shall be subject to cross-examination. Hence, the point framed for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is allowed in part. ii. Judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025 passed in O.S. No.3013/2023 on the file of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43) is hereby set aside. iii. The order restraining the defendant-appellant from misusing confidential information or defaming the plaintiff shall, however, continued till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.3013/2023. iv. The Trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to both the parties. The plaintiff to file affidavit of the authorized signatory or examine another representative subjecting him/her for cross-examination by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36322 RFA No. 1985 of 2025 defendant. The defendant shall be permitted to lead his evidence. v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court. vi. The Trial Court shall independently consider the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations in this judgment or the continuation of the injunction order. vii. It is needless to observe that parties are at liberty to explore amicable settlement. viii. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 14.10.2025 without waiting for further notice. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28