IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.3447-3449/2019 & WRIT PETITION Nos.4593-4597/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, TRANSPORT HOUSE, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER CUM FA REP THROUH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DHARMASTALLA DEPOT MANGALORE DIVISION, DHARMASTALLA REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
3. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHICKMAGALUR DEPOT CHICKMAGALUR DIVISION, CHICKMAGALUR REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI P. D. SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CITY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, GOVIND PAI CIRCLE, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE - 570 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONSUMER SALE MANAGER.
(BY SRI A.K. LAKSHMAN, ADVOCATE) …… ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7212/2004, ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE IN I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7213/2004, ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7214/2004, I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7215/2004, ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7216/2004, ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7217/2004, ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7218/2004 AND ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 MADE ON I.A.NO.1/2017 IN O.S.NO.7219/2004, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-E1 TO E8.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER All the petitioners who are defendants before the Trial Court filed these writ petitions against the Order dated 07.08.2019 on I.A.No.1/2017 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination which came to be rejected by the Trial Court in all the eight suits, mainly on the ground that, inspite of sufficient opportunity given, defendants have not further cross- examined P.W.2. The suit is of the year 2004. Except on one or two dates, the P.W.2 was present before the Court for cross-examination. But the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not cross-examined the witness and the matter was posted for arguments. Hence the present writ petitions are filed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
3. Sri P.D.Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners contended the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of more than `6 to 7 crores in all the suits, there was delay in cross-examining P.W.2, an opportunity has to be given to the defendants for further cross examination of P.W.2, in the interest of justice. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
4. Sri A.K.Lakshman, learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to justify the impugned order and contended that inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, even though the suit is 13 years old, the defendants failed to further cross examine P.W.2. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that all the suits filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is for recovery of money. The defendants have denied the plaint averments by filing written statement. When the defendants have not further cross examined the P.W.2, the matter came to be closed and posted for arguments. At that stage, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.1/2017 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination. The Trial Court has mentioned various dates and how the matter is being dragged by the parties to the lis. The fact remains that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of money as contended by the defendants, an opportunity should be given to the defendants to putforth their case on merits. Even though there was delay on the part of the defendants, same can be compensated in terms of money. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done on technicality. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that the dispute involved in the suits is for recovery of more than `6 to 7 crores, a final opportunity should have been given to the defendants for further cross-examination of P.W.2 by imposing cost. But the learned Judge has proceeded to reject the applications by the impugned Order.
7. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court dated 07.09.2018 on I.A.No.1/2017 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in all the suits, are hereby quashed. I.A.No.1/2017 filed by the defendants to recall P.W.2 for further cross- examination is allowed subject to payment of cost of `15,000/- payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing to be fixed by the Trial Court, without seeking further adjournment. If on that date to be fixed by the learned Judge, if defendants fail to proceed with further cross-examination of P.W.2, the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm