[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nclose Technologies vs Geetha Monitors (P) Ltd on 16 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
WP No. 24478 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 24478 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES
NO.3, RATHNA VILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR MANSOOR A.M.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUKUNDA P, ADV.)
AND:
GEETHA MONITORS (P) LTD
NO.38/1 1ST FLOOR
N S IYENGAR STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
Digitally MR. ASHOK ARJANDAS CHHABRIA
signed by
NANDINI M S REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI K, ADV., FOR
KARNATAKA SRI PRASANNA V.R, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-27)ON IA
NO.18 AND 19 IN OS.NO.413/2017 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW IA NO.18
AND 19 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.NO.413/2017 CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND E.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
WP No. 24478 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. The defendant is before this Court in this writ
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with
a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.11.2022 passed on
I.A.Nos.18 and 19 in O.S. No.413 of 2017 by Court of XII Addl.
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Suit in O.S.No.413 of 2017 is filed by the
respondent herein before the jurisdictional civil Court for
recovery of ₹.9,70,508/- with interest at the rate of 15% per
annum from the date of the suit till realisation. When the suit
was at the stage of addressing final arguments, I.A.Nos.18 and
19 were filed on behalf of the defendant under Order XVI Rule
1 of CPC with a prayer to reopen the stage of the suit and to
issue summons to witnesses named in the application. The
prayer made in the said applications was opposed by the
plaintiff by filing detailed statement of objection. The Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
HC-KAR
Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.Nos.18 and 19.
Being aggrieved by the same defendant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that the trial Court
had earlier allowed similar application filed on behalf of the
defendant. Though defendant was diligent and had taken
necessary steps for summoning the witnesses named in the
application, who are the Commercial Tax Officers, the said
officers had not appeared before the Court and the Trial Court
therefore, has posted the matter for addressing arguments on
the merits of the case. It is under these circumstance,
I.A.Nos.18 and 19 were filed. The Trial Court was not justified
in rejecting I.A.Nos.18 and 19. He submits that if an
opportunity to examine the witnesses is not granted to the
defendant, his defence is likely to be prejudiced. Accordingly,
he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent / plaintiff has argued in support of the order
impugned. She submits that suit is of the year 2017 and
defendant has been making all kinds of efforts to deliberately
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
HC-KAR
protract the litigation. She submits that, at all stages
unnecessary applications are filed and it is under these
circumstances the Court has noticed the conduct of the
defendant and has rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.18 and 19 by
imposing exemplary costs. She accordingly prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show
that suit in O.S.No.413 of 2017 is filed by the respondent
herein for recovery of money to the tune of ₹9,70,508/- from
the petitioner herein towards supply of computer and
notebooks on different dates. Initially, the defendant had not
entered appearance in the suit and therefore the Trial Court
had posted the suit for passing ex-parte judgment. At that
stage, applications were filed on behalf of the defendant to
permit him to file his written statement and contest the suit
claim. The Trial Court had allowed the said applications, which
were filed belated with an observation that the defendant shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments. Subsequently, the
defendant had filed his written statement in the suit and based
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
HC-KAR
on the rival pleadings, issues were framed in O.S.No.413 of
2017 on 17.07.2017.
7. It appears that after the plaintiff had examined its
witness, the defendant also has examined its witness as DW.1
and when the matter was posted for addressing final
arguments, applications were filed on behalf of the defendant
to reopen the stage of the case and to permit him to examine
two other witnesses named in the application, who are said to
be the Commercial Tax Officers. The Trial Court had allowed
the said applications in the year 2021. However, since the
defendant had not taken necessary steps for service of witness
summons on the witnesses who were named in his application
in spite of the plaintiff furnishing the correct name and address
of the said witnesses, the trial Court had closed defendants
evidence vide order dated 28.09.2022 and posted the matter
for addressing final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments
were addressed on behalf of the plaintiff on two dates and time
was sought on behalf of the defendant to address final
arguments. After having sought time to address final
arguments, the present applications are filed on behalf of the
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
HC-KAR
defendant to reopen the stage of the case and permit the
defendant to examine the commercial tax officers as witnesses
on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court having appreciated
that, in spite of opportunity being granted on the earlier
occasion, the defendant was not diligent enough to summon
the witnesses by taking necessary steps against them, has
rejected I.A.Nos.18 and19 imposing costs on defendant, taking
note of the conduct of the defendant in conducting the suit. I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order which
is impugned in this petition. A party who is making efforts to
protract the litigation by filing repeated applications cannot be
entertained and his conduct needs to be deprecated. The trial
court was therefore fully justified in passing the order
impugned. I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ
petition.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff
submits that plaintiff has already addressed its arguments on
merits and only the defendant is now required to address
arguments on merits and therefore the trial Court may be
directed to dispose of the suit within a time frame.
NC: 2025:KHC:53551
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Since the suit is of the year 2017, the Trial Court is
requested to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as
possible, but not later than period of two months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
Pending applications do not survive for consideration and
accordingly the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
