IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 27176 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S BHUVANESHWARI LINES AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35/1, FORTUNE PARK, 3RD FLOOR, PARK ROAD, TASKAR TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI M THYAAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE T MURUGAVELU, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S PEARL PORTS AND WARE HOUSING PVT LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.203, 2ND FLOOR, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUKMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, AND AUTHORIZED INCHARGE, SRI RAMIL P SHAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SRI P H SHAH … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30) ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.9940/2014 AT ANNX-F TO THE W.P. ONLY IN RELATION TO IMPOSING CONDITION ON THE PETITIONER TO GIVE SECURITY FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- AND CONSEQUENTLY, PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.9940/2014 UNCONDITIONALLY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a summary suit in O.S.No.9940/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 27.02.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby, the learned XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having favoured conditionally his application in IA No.3 has granted leave to take up defence subject to the rider that petitioner shall furnish security for the amount claimed in the suit.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the writ petition papers and having adverted to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MECHELEC ENGINEERS & MANUFACTURERS VS. BASIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, MANU/SC/0043/1976 and also having referred to the Apex Court decision in IDBI TRUSYSHIP SERVICES LTD., Vs. HUBTOWN LTD., 2017 (1) SCC 568, this Court is of a considered opinion that matter does not merit deeper scrutiny by the Writ Court in its limited jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order regardless of the quality & quantum of its reasoning falls within the parameters laid down in IDBI TRUSTYSHIP Case above.
3. The contention of the petitioner that once the Court below finds a triable case looking to the version of the defendant, ordinarily, leniency should be shown in imposing conditions subject to which leave is to be accorded is bit difficult to accept as a thumb rule. What should be the conditions subject to which leave is to be accorded depends upon facts & circumstances of each case. No fault can be found with the trial judge in granting leave subject to the conditions stipulated.
4. The impugned order being a product of exercise of discretion statutorily vested in the Court below does not merit an appellate way scrutiny at the hands of Writ Court vide SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2003 (3) SCC 524 in the absence of demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, despite lengthy argument.
Writ petition is accordingly rejected in limine. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv