- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5417 WP No. 25284 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25284 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. INNOVENT SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,2013 OFFICE AT CAREERNET CAMPUS, PLOT NO.53, KARIYAMMA AGRAHARA ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560103 REPRESENTED BY MR PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, SENIOR MANAGER FINANCE. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARCHANA K M.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. AFFLE INDIA LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,1956 3RD FLOOR, TOWER-B, AWFIS UNITECH CYBER PARK, SECTOR-39, GURUGRAM-122002 HARYANA ALSO AT: VAISHNAVI TECH PARK, GROUND FLOOR, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560103 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHANUSH M.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29-08-2024 VIDE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5417 WP No. 25284 of 2024 ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON IA NO. 5 TO 7 IN COM OS NO. 220/2023 BY THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-89), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, AND PASS AN ORDER ALLOWING IA NO. 5 TO 7 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.220/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.5 to 7, whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner – plaintiff to recall PW-1 and to produce additional evidence by recalling PW-1 and by re-opening the case, were dismissed by the commercial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the aforesaid commercial suit filed by the petitioner – plaintiff against the respondent – defendant for recovery in a sum of Rs.1,97,86,098/-, the petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence and after cross-examining PW-1, the petitioner filed the instant applications seeking permission to recall PW-1 and to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5417 WP No. 25284 of 2024 produce additional evidence by recalling PW-1 and to re-open the case. The said applications having been opposed by the respondent-defendant, the commercial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications on the ground that the Affidavits filed in support of the said applications, did not make out valid or sufficient cause for delayed production of documents. In my considered opinion, the reasoning of the commercial court and the findings recorded by it are contrary to the material on record, in as much as, the documents now sought to be produced are relevant, essential and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. In the event, since the respondent-defendant would be entitled to cross-examine PW- 1 with reference to the additional evidence, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondent-defendant if PW- 1 is permitted to be recalled for further evidence and by producing the additional documents. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent – defendant submits that the respondent has already filed one more application seeking production of additional documents and in view of the present petition is being allowed permitting delayed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5417 WP No. 25284 of 2024 production of documents by the petitioner, the said application filed by the respondent – defendant may also be directed to be allowed by the commercial court. The said submission is placed on record. 5. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to produce the additional documents by recalling PW-1 for further evidence and by re-opening the case, the petitioner does not have any objection for the production of additional documents filed by the respondent-defendant to be allowed by the commercial court. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the commercial court dismissing the applications has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.5 to 7 in Com.O.S.No.220/2023 by the commercial court is hereby set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5417 WP No. 25284 of 2024 (iii) Petitioner-plaintiff is permitted the PW-1 to adduce further evidence of PW-1 without seeking unnecessary adjournments in the matter. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent-defendant to cross-examine PW-1 on all aspects of the matter including additional evidence. (v) The commercial court is also directed to allow the application filed by the respondent – defendant for production of documents and also permit respondent – defendant to adduce oral evidence after completion of cross-examination of PW-1 and proceed further in the matter. (vi) It is needless to state that upon the respondent – defendant adducing oral and documentary evidence including additional documents which have been permitted to be produced by the respondent by the present order, the petitioner would be entitled to cross-examine the respondent-defendant and its witnesses. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.