- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 24478 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATHNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR MANSOOR A.M. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKUNDA P, ADV.) AND: GEETHA MONITORS (P) LTD NO.38/1 1ST FLOOR N S IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK ARJANDAS CHHABRIA REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI K, ADV., FOR SRI PRASANNA V.R, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-27)ON IA NO.18 AND 19 IN OS.NO.413/2017 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW IA NO.18 AND 19 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.NO.413/2017 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND E. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.11.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.18 and 19 in O.S. No.413 of 2017 by Court of XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.413 of 2017 is filed by the respondent herein before the jurisdictional civil Court for recovery of ₹.9,70,508/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. When the suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments, I.A.Nos.18 and 19 were filed on behalf of the defendant under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC with a prayer to reopen the stage of the suit and to issue summons to witnesses named in the application. The prayer made in the said applications was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed statement of objection. The Trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.Nos.18 and 19. Being aggrieved by the same defendant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the trial Court had earlier allowed similar application filed on behalf of the defendant. Though defendant was diligent and had taken necessary steps for summoning the witnesses named in the application, who are the Commercial Tax Officers, the said officers had not appeared before the Court and the Trial Court therefore, has posted the matter for addressing arguments on the merits of the case. It is under these circumstance, I.A.Nos.18 and 19 were filed. The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.Nos.18 and 19. He submits that if an opportunity to examine the witnesses is not granted to the defendant, his defence is likely to be prejudiced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff has argued in support of the order impugned. She submits that suit is of the year 2017 and defendant has been making all kinds of efforts to deliberately - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 protract the litigation. She submits that, at all stages unnecessary applications are filed and it is under these circumstances the Court has noticed the conduct of the defendant and has rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.18 and 19 by imposing exemplary costs. She accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that suit in O.S.No.413 of 2017 is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money to the tune of ₹9,70,508/- from the petitioner herein towards supply of computer and notebooks on different dates. Initially, the defendant had not entered appearance in the suit and therefore the Trial Court had posted the suit for passing ex-parte judgment. At that stage, applications were filed on behalf of the defendant to permit him to file his written statement and contest the suit claim. The Trial Court had allowed the said applications, which were filed belated with an observation that the defendant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Subsequently, the defendant had filed his written statement in the suit and based - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 on the rival pleadings, issues were framed in O.S.No.413 of 2017 on 17.07.2017. 7. It appears that after the plaintiff had examined its witness, the defendant also has examined its witness as DW.1 and when the matter was posted for addressing final arguments, applications were filed on behalf of the defendant to reopen the stage of the case and to permit him to examine two other witnesses named in the application, who are said to be the Commercial Tax Officers. The Trial Court had allowed the said applications in the year 2021. However, since the defendant had not taken necessary steps for service of witness summons on the witnesses who were named in his application in spite of the plaintiff furnishing the correct name and address of the said witnesses, the trial Court had closed defendants evidence vide order dated 28.09.2022 and posted the matter for addressing final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed on behalf of the plaintiff on two dates and time was sought on behalf of the defendant to address final arguments. After having sought time to address final arguments, the present applications are filed on behalf of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 defendant to reopen the stage of the case and permit the defendant to examine the commercial tax officers as witnesses on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court having appreciated that, in spite of opportunity being granted on the earlier occasion, the defendant was not diligent enough to summon the witnesses by taking necessary steps against them, has rejected I.A.Nos.18 and19 imposing costs on defendant, taking note of the conduct of the defendant in conducting the suit. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order which is impugned in this petition. A party who is making efforts to protract the litigation by filing repeated applications cannot be entertained and his conduct needs to be deprecated. The trial court was therefore fully justified in passing the order impugned. I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submits that plaintiff has already addressed its arguments on merits and only the defendant is now required to address arguments on merits and therefore the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit within a time frame. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53551 WP No. 24478 of 2022 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2017, the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40