Karnataka High Court
Kharche And Associates vs M/S. Semac Consultants Pvt Ltd on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2021(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KHARCHE AND ASSOCIATES
NO.20, SHAFFEE MOHAMMED ROAD
CHENNAI-600006
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR PRASHANTH S KARCHE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAGHU HULIKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. SEMAC CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
NO.37, SURYALAYA
SHANKAR MUTT ROAD
SHANKARAPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560004
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF CONTRACTS
AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR RAMANUJAM KUMARAN
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PAARAS PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
2
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 27.11.2020 PASSED ON IA
NO.3 IN COM.OS NO.168/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL COURT AND SESSION JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH 84) VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
defendant feeling aggrieved by the order dated
27.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.3 seeking a direction
against plaintiff to furnish copy of the documents
produced along with the plaint. The said application is
rejected by the learned Judge.
2. The respondent-plaintiff has instituted a
suit before a Commercial Court seeking recovery of
Rs.11,24,912/- with further interest at the rate of
18% from March 2019 till the date of actual payment.
On receipt of summons, the present petitioner who is
arrayed as defendant filed an application under
Section 151 by specifically alleging that the
documents relied on by the plaintiff are not furnished
as per the list of documents annexed to the plaint. It
is in this background, the petitioner claims that
without knowing the veracity of the documents relied
on by the plaintiff, it would be difficult for defendant
to contest the suit by filing written statement. The
said application is rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for
respondent. I have given my anxious consideration to
the judgments cited by both the counsel.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-plaintiff has brought to the notice of this
Court that the present petitioner-defendant has filed
written statement on 15.12.2020. This application
was filed much prior to the filing of the written
statement i.e. on 20.12.2019. The very purpose of
filing the present application under Section 151 by the
defendant was to enable him to file written statement
and it is in this background, the petitioner insisted
that the plaintiff shall furnish the list of documents.
The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff
submits that only one document is produced along
with the plaint and the petitioner is aware of the
contents of the document on which the entire suit is
based.
5. The petitioner has furnished a copy of the
written statement which is annexed at Annexure-E to
the writ petition. Paras 5 and 6 of the written
statement would clinch the issue. Therefore, this
Court deems it fit to cull out the said relevant
paragraphs which reads as under:
"5. That in so far as the prayer to pay 18%
of interest from March 2019 to till to date of
actual payment of concerned that, even as
per the alleged payment terms under
Memorandum of Agreement dated
29/11/2010 the rate of interest is Rs.15%
and as such claiming interest at 18% cannot
be acceded in the above matter.
6. It is submitted that, at no point of time,
the defendant has not committed any default
while making payment, since the beneficiary
of the service VGN Group, Chennai has
denied to make any payment because of the
default committed by the Plaintiff, while
exectuing project, the adrupt withdrawal of
the Plaintiff while executing the, has caused
an impediment in continuing with the project
and the defendant was forced to engage the
services of the other consultants to compelet
the project. Since the project was not
completed by the plaintiff in accordance with
the agreed terms and the standard, the
defendant has spent huge amount for
completing the project resulting in loss to
the Defenadant. If at all the plaintiff would
have completed the project within the
stipulated period, defendant would not have
faced numerous incidental problewhich
resulted in financial difficulties."
6. The application under Section 151 seeking
direction against plaintiff was intended to know the
contents of the document. Paras 5 and 6 clearly
indicate that the present petitioner is well aware of
the memorandum of agreement dated 29.11.2010.
Paras 5 and 6 clearly demonstrate that the present
petitioner in his defence has referred to the
documents and has disputed the rate of interest.
7. If these significant details are taken note
of, then this Court is of the view that the prayer
sought in the application has lost its relevance as
petitioner has already filed written statement.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prayer
sought in the application does not survive for
consideration. Therefore, there is no need to examine
the judgments cited by both the counsel in support of
their contentions.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
