- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12042 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI G.V.NAGASHANKARA S/O G.V.VENKATACHALA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SHILPA METALS SECTIONS HOSALINE ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SARAVANA ALLOY STEEL PVT. LTD., NO.21/D AND 22 INDUSTRIAL 2ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPURA TUMKURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 022 COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANY ACT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SRI NAGARAJI SARAVANA https://www.zaubacorp.com/directors/ NAGARAJI SARAVANA /01548782 3. SRI SHASHIKUMAR NAGARAJI https://www.zaubacorp.com/directers/ SHASHI KUAMR NAGARAJI /01548782 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 4. SRI SANJAY KUAMR NAGARAJI https://www.zaubacrop.com/directers/ SANJAY KUMAR NAGARAJI/05487831) 5. SRI DEVAKI SUBBARAYANA NAGARAJI (h++p:11) CORPORATOR COM/OFFICER/01994964 6. SRI SWAMINATHAN NAGARAJI (https://www.zaubacorp.com/directoers/ SWAMINATHAN NAGARAJI/01994972 ALL ARE PARTNERS OF SARAVANA ALLOY STEEL PVT. LTD., NO.21/D AND 22, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB 2ND STAGE, TUMKURU ROAD YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DTD 01.04.24 PASSED IN COMM. OS NO. 2/22 BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN ON IA NO. 5 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.12.2023 and another order dated 01.04.2024, passed on interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, in O.S.No.2/2022. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Suraj Sampath, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The petitioner – plaintiff institutes a suit on 13.04.2016, in O.S.No.48/2016, seeking recovery of certain sum. After constitution of the Commercial Court, the matter is transferred to the Commercial Court, which is then renumbered as O.S.No.2/2022. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. In the subject Commercial O.S., the concerned Court declines to mark certain documents and the petitioner files an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The concerned Court declines to accept the plea submitted with regard to the documents already marked on 11.12.2023 and insofar as the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment is concerned, the concerned Court has observed that the suit is instituted in the year 2016 and the invoices that the petitioner is wanting to bring in by way of an amendment are of the year 2013. If these documents were available in the year 2013, at the hands of the petitioner, nothing stopped him from producing and marking the same in the year 2016, at the time of institution of the suit. The concerned Court has also observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would mandate that the plaintiff should exercise due diligence at the time of filing of the suit. Since the documents are of the year 2013; the application is filed in the year 2024, which is filed in the suit of the year 2016, the application cannot be allowed for the asking without any demonstration that those documents were not produced even after due diligence. That is not the affidavit that is filed before the concerned Court by the petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner is noted only to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel would now restrict his submission to the amplification of the pleadings already made in the plaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 with regard to certain invoices. The said submission would merit acceptance, despite opposition from the hands of the learned counsel for respondents - defendants. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted at the time of arguments to amplify those contents of the plaint. The cross-examination reads as follows: “ಾಯನು ಈ ನ ಾಂಕ 11.12.2023 ರಂದು ಪನಃ ಕೆ ಪಾಣವಚನ ೋೆ: ಾ!ೕಸ#ಾಲು: %ೕ &ೆ'.(ೆ.ಎಂ. ವ*ೕಲ+ಂದಃ ಎದುರುಾರರ ಪರ#ಾ,: ಾನು - ಎ. ಪದ/ೕಧರ. ನನ1ೆ ಅ(ೌಂ4. ಬ1ೆ6 7ಾನ ಇೆ. ನನ1ೆ ಾ9ಂಕ ೆ:ೕ4 ;ಂ4 ಗಳ ಬ1ೆ6 ಸಹ ಅ+ವ ಇೆ. ಾನು 2010 +ಂದ ಪ?#ಾ ಸಂೆ@ಯAB ಗುಾಸCಾ, (ೆಲಸ ಾಡು?CೆEೕೆ. #ಾ ಯು ಪ?#ಾ ಯವರ FೊGೆ ಾHರುವ ವ9ವ&ಾರದ ಬ1ೆ6 ?ಳIವJ(ೆ ಇೆ. ಈ ಾ#ಾದAB &ೇJರುವ ವ9ವ&ಾರದ ಬ1ೆ6 ಪ?#ಾ ಯ+1ೆ #ಾ ಹಣ ಾವ? ಾHದ ಬ1ೆ6 ನನ1ೆ ಾK? ಇೆ. #ಾ ಯು ಪ?#ಾ 1ೆ ಒಟು: ಎಷು: ಹಣ ಾವ? ಾHಾEೆ ಎನುವದನು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ: ಅ(ೌಂ4. ೋಡೆ ನನ1ೆ ಈಗ &ೇಳOಾಗುವ ಲB. ಾ#ಾ ವ9ವ&ಾರದ ಬ1ೆ6 ಾವ ಅ(ೌಂ4. ಾಖOೆಗಳನು ಇಟು:(ೊಂHರುGೆCೕ#ೆ. ಸದ+ ಾಖOೆಗಳನು ಾ9QಾಲಯದAB &ಾಜರುಪHಸಲು ನನ1ೆ Qಾವೇ Gೊಂದೆ ಇಲB. ಪ?#ಾ ಸಂೆ@ಯ Qಾವೇ ಹಣ(ಾನ ವ9ವ&ಾರವನು ಾ9ಂS ಮೂಲಕ#ೇ ಾಡOಾಗುತCೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ+. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 2. #ಾ ಯವರು ಪ?#ಾ ಸಂೆ@ಯ FೊGೆ 19.01.2013 0 23.09.2013ರ ತನಕ ವ9ವ&ಾರ ಾHರುGಾCೆ. ಪ?#ಾ ಸಂೆ@Wಂದ ಎಷು: ;!ೕ+ಯX ಗಳI #ಾ 1ೆ ಸರಬಾಜು ಆ,ರುತCೆ ಎನುವ ಬ1ೆ6 ನಮZAB ಾಖOೆ ಇಲB. #ಾ ಯು ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣ ನಮ1ೆ ಾವ? ಾHದ ನಂತರ ಾವ ಅವ+1ೆ ಸರಕುಗಳನು ಸರಬಾಜು ಾಡು?CದುEದು ಎಂದೆ ಸ+, #ಾ ಈ ಾ#ೆಯನು Qಾವ (ಾರಣ(ಾ[, &ಾ*ದುE ಎನುವದನು ಾನು ?Jದು(ೊಂHರುGೆCೕೆ. ಈಗ Gೋ+ದ \]ಾೆ ^.38 ಾಖOೆ ಪ(ಾರ ಾಂಕ 19.01.2013 0 2 2 5.20,00,000/- ಆ_.!.`.ಎa. ಮೂಲಕ ಾ9ಂS bಾGೆ1ೆ ಜಾ ಆ,ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ+, ನಂತರ 20 08.02.2013 0 #ಾ Wಂದ ಪ?#ಾ ಾ9ಂ*1ೆ ರೂ.20,00,000/- ಹಣ ಆ_.!.`.ಎa, ಮೂಲಕ ಾವ?Qಾ,ೆ 2 . 14.03.2013, 09.04.2013, 07.05.2013, 10.06.2013, 11.07.2013, 13.08.2013 ಮತುC 23.09.2013 0 ಒಟು: 1,40,00,000/- ಹಣ #ಾ Wಂದ ಪ?#ಾ 1ೆ ಆ_.!.`.ಎa. ಮೂಲಕ ಾವ?Qಾ,ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ+. ಅಂದೆ #ಾ Wಂದ ಪ?#ಾ 1ೆ ಈ ;ೕOೆ ತOಾ ರೂ.20 ಲcದಂGೆ SS &ೇJದ +ೕ? ಒಟು: ರೂ.1,80,00,000/- ಾವ?Qಾ,ರುತCೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ+. ಈಗ Gೋ+ದ \]ಾೆ ^.1 +ಂದ \]ಾೆ ^.32 ಾಖOೆಗಳI #ಾ 1ೆ ಪ?#ಾ ಸಂೆ@ \ೕHರುವ ಇಾde. ಕf gೆAವ+ ಚಲh ಗಳI ಎಂದೆ ಸ+. ಈಗ Gೋ+ದ ಾಂಕ 28.09.2013 ರ ಇಾde. ಕf gೆAವ+ iೆಲh ನಂಬ_ 3202 ಾಖOೆಯು ಪ?#ಾ #ಾ 1ೆ \ೕHರುವ ಇಾde. ಕf gೆAವ+ ಚಲh ಎಂದೆ ಸ+, ಸದ+ ಾಖOೆಯನು \]ಾೆ ^.42 ಎಂದು ಗುರು?ಸOಾ,ೆ. ಈಗ Gೋ+ದ ಾಂಕ 12.10.2013 ರ ಇಾde. ಕf gೆAವ+ ಚಲh ನಂಬ_ 3369 ಾಖOೆಯು ಪ?#ಾ #ಾ 1ೆ \ೕHರುವ ಇಾde. ಕf gೆAವ+ ಚಲh ಎಂದೆ ಸ+. (ಆದೆ ಸದ+ ಾಖOೆಯು FೆಾS. ನಕOಾ,ರುವ (ಾರಣ ಾಯು ಅದನು ಒ^jದEರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ+ ಾಖOೆಯನು \]ಾೆQಾ, ಗುರು?ಲB.) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26437 WP No. 12042 of 2024 (ಈ ಹಂತದAB ಾ9Qಾಲಯದ ಸಮಯ#ಾದE+ಂದ ಮುದುವೆದ ಾ!ೕಸ#ಾA1ೆ (ಾOಾವ(ಾಶ \ೕಡOಾ,ೆ) (Gೆೆದ ಾ9QಾಲಯದAB ಾಯ &ೇJ(ೆಯನು ನನ ಉಕCOೇಖನದ ಮೂಲಕ ೆರಳಚುn ಾHಸOಾWತು)” It is needless to observe that the concerned Court would answer those amplified submissions on the documents already marked. 5. The other submission is with regard to marking of documents borne out in the cross-examination. Therefore, the permission to amplify the submissions qua the plaint and the cross-examination would remain and the said direction in the considered view of this Court would suffice for the present. 6. In the light of the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the parties and the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13/CT:SS