- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32369 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. PRAVEEN TUBES CORPORATION A PARTNERSHIP FIRM SECTION 58(1) IN THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, NO.48, POST OFFICE STREET, CHENNAI 600001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. R. V. BABU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. MR. R. V. BABU A PARTNER, PRAVEEN TUBES CORPORATION, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 57 YEARS, S/O SRI. R. VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT D35, 4TH STREET, EAST ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600102. 3. MRS. SUCHITRA BABU W/O SRI. R. V. BABU AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT D35, 4TH STREET, EAST ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600102. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHIRVAD PIPES PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4B, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 562107 AND REPRESENTD BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. BALAMURALI KRISHNA …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED ON THE I.A.NO.3 IN COM.OS.NO.47/2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, CCH-86, COMMERCIAL COURT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the petitioners named above humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and i. quash the order dated 18.09.2025 passed on the IA.No.3 in Com O S No.407/2024 passed by the LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Session Judge at Bengaluru, CCH-86, Commercial Court as per Annexure-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 ii. consequently, allow the application in IA No.3 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Com O S No.407/2024 on the file of the LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Session Judge at Bengaluru, CCH-86, Commercial Court iii. and pass such other Writ or Order on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 3. This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondent, as no adverse orders passed against the respondent-plaintiff, as well as this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 4. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff i.e., respondent herein against the defendants i.e., the petitioners herein seeking recovery of amount on contractual transactions. After appearance of the defendant, evidence were adduced. At the time of closure of the evidence of DW-1, petitioners filed IA.Nos.3 and 4 to recall the order dated 04.08.2025 and permit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 re-examination of DW-1. Applications filed by the petitioners-defendants came to be dismissed by a detailed order. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the Commercial Court had not applied its mind while passing the impugned order and the order requires to be set aside and permission to be granted to the defendants to re-examine DW-1 only for the purpose of clarifying certain facts which help in better understanding of the lis between the parties eventually leading to better adjudication of the case. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that some of the questions posed by the learned counsel for respondent herein i.e., the plaintiff could not be understand by defence witness i.e., DW-1 and hence, he could not answer correctly. It is also contended that he has studied in Tamil medium upto 10th Standard and could not understand the context under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 which the document was shown to him and sought explanation. Therefore, with regard to the question "if it is suggested that in all the invoices raised by the plaintiff there is mention about the purchase order the witness says they were placing orders orally with the marketing team of the plaintiff who use to raise the purchase orders". 7. Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the witness has not comprehended this question and did not understand the question which was posed to the witness who was not well qualified and was unable to understand the question. Hence, he has answered in a particular manner which was not the intent of the witness in addressing the question so suggested which was put in the form of the suggestion. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the transaction between the parties are admitted, so also some of the materials were purchased, delivered and some sold at the same time. It is further - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 contended that some excess material were also delivered, supplied and odd size materials were also supplied which could not be sold by the defendants and therefore, the very particular suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff could not be understood which is alleged to have created an anomaly in answering the question by DW-1. 9. Having gone through the impugned order of the trial Court, the trial Court has answered this aspect of the anomaly and non-understanding of D.W.1. The suggestions put forth at paragraph No.10 of the impugned order and all other aspects and as negative the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for petitioners-defendants under the premise that there is no ambiguity that arises in the answer given by DW-1 and also has detailed as to how re-examination requires to be conducted and no objection was raised or mentioned before the Court immediately after recording of the evidence either by the witness or by the counsel appearing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43240 WP No. 32369 of 2025 of the defendants before the trial Court when evidence was recorded. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. 10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground or merits in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for petitioners to appreciate or allow this petition in favour of the petitioners to permit for re-examination of DW-1. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. 11. According, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN/GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13