- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22158 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DHRUTI INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT HAVING OFFICE NO.120, “18” EPIP ZONE, OPPOSITE INORBIT MALL, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.KARRU KOTERWARA RAO. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: VISHWAMBHARA ESTATES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS BUSINESS PLACE AT NO.40/1, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAYE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, 1. SRI R.VISHAMBHARA 2. SRI R.GIRIDHAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.07.2025 PASSED IN COM OS NO. 763/2021 BY XI TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU REJECTING IA NO. 16 AND IA NO. 17 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-R BY ALLOWING IA NO. 16 AND IA NO. 17. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court seeking to quash the order dated 17-07-2025 passed on I.A.Nos.16 and 17 filed in Com.O.S.No.763 of 2021 before the concerned Court. 2. Heard Sri B Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri C M nagabhushana, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner is the defendant, the respondent, the plaintiff. The two have a transaction. The transaction is a Joint Development Agreement. The dispute arose out of the Joint - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 Development Agreement and a suit in O.S.No.1652 of 2018 is preferred seeking cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed by the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was transferred to the Commercial Court owing to its nature, it then becomes the Commercial O.S.763 of 2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or the defence of the defendant. 3.2. The petitioner/defendant files an application before the concerned commercial Court seeking production of documents invoking Order IX Rule 1(10) of the CPC. The concerned court by its order dated 19-09-2023 rejects the application by a detailed order. The said rejection has become final, as the petitioner does not choose to challenge the same. After about 2 years when the suit progressed to a large extent, two more applications spring, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and another under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking summoning of the Commissioner of the BDA for production of documents and examination. The concerned Court rejects both the applications - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 by order dated 17-07-2025. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications ought to have been allowed, as it was imperative for the decision of the issue in the lis, inasmuch as the documents that are now sought, would cut into the root of the matter. The learned counsel submits that there is a Rajakaluve that runs through the property which is now the subject matter of the Joint Development Agreement and therefore those documents would clinch the issue as, if a Rajakaluve would pass through the property, the property could not have been the subject matter of Joint Development Agreement at all. 5. The learned counsel Sri C M Nagabhushana appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that these very documents were sought by the petitioner, albeit, on a different provision of law in IA Nos. 7 and 8, the same comes to be rejected by the concerned Court on 19-09-2023, the rejection of which has become final. The learned counsel would further add that though the rejection was on a different reason, nonetheless these very documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 were rejected to be placed before the Court or summoned. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The aforesaid facts are a matter of record and would lie in a narrow compass at this juncture. The agreement between the parties is a matter of record. The dispute arising out of the Joint Development Agreement is again a matter of record. Both the parties were before the Civil Court in the year 2018 and the matter stood transferred to the Commercial Court in the year 2021. The issue is, whether the applications filed by the petitioner should merit consideration or otherwise? 8. This Court has clearly held that a fragmented production of documents by the defendant which are not even referred to in the written statement, unless a reasonable cause is shown, should not merit consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these documents are in the custody of the BDA and therefore he could not produce. He has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 not made at least an averment to that effect in the subject suit while filing the written statement. The written statement was filed way back in the year 2018. The matter was transferred to the Commercial Court. Several attempts are made by the petitioner to bring in the documents or the facts, as the case would be, all of the said applications are turned down. Turning down of the applications has become final. The second set of application in a new avatar would not have been entertained by the concerned Court and is rightly not entertained. 9. The order of the concerned Court, while rejecting the applications of the petitioner, which is impugned in the subject petition reads as follows: “…. …. …. 10. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking cancellation of Joint Development Agreement dated 04.06.2015 registered in the Office of Sub- Registrar. Banaswadi along with General Power of Attorney dated 04.06.2015 registered in the same office of the Sub-Registrar and other consequential relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction against the defendant. At the outset. the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants is purely a commercial dispute. 11. Object behind enacting Commercial Courts Act is to provide quick speedy and time bound relief to the parties. Undisputed fact in this case is that defendant company has filed several applications seeking production - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 of additional documents and for examination of witnesses in the previous occasions and the same came to be not allowed by this court. 12. In the present I.A.No.16 filed Under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, defendant is seeking to recall the order dated 05.07.2025 in which I.A filed by the Advocate for the defendant under Order XVII Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking adjournment was dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- and further examination of DW.1 was taken as nil. Further in I.A.No. 16, defendant is seeking to lead further evidence of DW.1. Perused the deposition of DW.1. Examination-in-chief affidavit of DW.1 was filed on 27.10.2023. DW.1 further examined in chief on two occasions and thereafter DW.1 was put to cross- examination by the Advocate for the plaintiff. Reasons assigned for recalling DW. 1 for further examination-in- chief is not supported by any reasonable grounds. Reasons for not keeping DW.1 present for further examination-in-chief when the matter was posted for recording further examination-in-chief is also not satisfactorily explained by the defendant. As there is no merit in the application filed by the defendant seeking to recall order dated 05.07.2025 and to permit to lead further evidence of DW.1 on I.A.No.16 is liable to be dismissed. 13. So far as second point for consideration on I.A.No.17 to summon the Commissioner, BDA is concerned, first of all, no list of witnesses was filed by the defendant immediately after within time prescribed to file list of witnesses from the date of framing issues. Secondly the BDA is the defendant No.2 in Com. O.S.No.43.2022. Hence, summoning the Commissioner, BDA to give evidence as to whether the defendant filed requisition for sanction plan in respect of suit schedule property is not at all permitted under the facts and circumstances of this case. 14. As discussed above, plaintiff filed this suit against defendant seeking cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the defendant. Defendant has already filed his detailed written statement admitting the execution of Joint Development Agreement and General - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 Power of Attorney. Only defence set up by the defendant and the burden of proof on the defendant is, cancellation of Joint Development Agreement by the plaintiff is not justifiable because defendant had performed part of contract and the plaintiff is responsible for delay in completion of project work. 15. By filing the annexed applications, defendant is intending to recall the order dated 05.07.2025 to permit the defendant to lead further evidence and to produce additional documents by summoning the Commissioner, BDA. At the outset, records reveal that similar type of applications had been filed by the defendant and the same came to be dismissed by this court as rightly pointed out by the Advocate for the plaintiff. 16. It is also undisputed facts that the said order had attained finality because of not preferring any appeal or writ petition to rest the said order. Therefore. Doctrine of Res-Judicata is applicable for the subsequent filing applications seeking same relief by the defendant. Moreover when the BDA is defendant No.2 in the clubbed case, question of summoning Commissioner, BDA to produce documents does not arise at all because Court cannot compel any party to lead evidence. It is the responsibility of the parties to lead evidence to establish their case and to discharge burden of proof as per issues framed. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgments reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3341 is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, when the conduct of the defendant is taken into consideration. 17. Records reveal that multiple adjournments had been taken by the defendant side on one pretext or other. Defendant failed to establish the fact that the Commissioner BDA is a necessary witness to decide the issue as to whether the plaintiff is right in cancelling Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the defendant for developing his private land. Absolutely there is no merit in the applications filed by the defendant and the same are liable to be dismissed with costs. With these observations, point for consideration are answered in the Negative and I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37178 WP No. 22158 of 2025 ORDER I.A.No. 16 filed by the defendant Under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/-. I.A.No.17 filed by the defendant Under Order XVI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/-. To pay cost of Rs.5,000/- and to keep DW.1 for further cross-examination finally.” Perusal at the aforesaid order would not brood any perversity or failure of justice that would ensue by the rejection of the applications. In that light, there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Interim order of any kind operating, shall stand dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP