M/S SHREENIDHI TRADING COMPANY vs. M/S INDUS MINES and MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WP No.114156/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S SHREENIDHI TRADING COMPANY, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BADARINARAYAN S/O NANDAKISHOR LADDA, AGE: 40 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, LOCATED AT DOOR NO.345, KIRAN NIVAS, OPP TO AIR, HOSAPETE, DIST:BELLARY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. F. R. GADAGANATH FOR SRI.K L PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1. M/S INDUS MINES & MINERALS (P) LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE PLOT NO.205, J ANAKIRAMA APARTMENT, RTC CROSS ROADS, CHIKKADAPALLY, HYDERABAD, ADRAPRADESH, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI.J.KANNAIAH CHOWDHARY R/O:DOOR.NO.2, DARA BENDRE NAGAR, V.NAGAPPA LAYOUT, HOSPET ROAD, BELLARY-583104

- 2 - 2. M/S INDUS MINES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DOOR NO.2, DARA BENDRE NAGAR, V.NAGAPPA LAYOUT, HOSAPETE ROAD, BELLARY-583104, BY ITS DIRECTOR AND INCHARGE AT BELLARY, SRI.J.KANNAIAH CHOWDHARY, R/O:DOOR.NO.2, DARA BENDRE NAGAR, V.NAGAPPA LAYOUT, HOSPET ROAD, BELLARY-583104. 3. SRI.J.KANNAIAH CHOWDHARY, AGE:37 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF M/S INDUS MINES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, R/O:DOOR.NO.2, DARA BENDRE NAGAR, V.NAGAPPA LAYOUT, HOSPET ROAD, BELLARY-583104. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON IA.NO.15 DATED:17.10.2015 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPET, IN OS.NO.59/2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner company is aggrieved by the order dated 17/10/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.

- 3 - Hospet, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC and has refused to summon the documents and witnesses as prayed for by the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Company had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.28,38,597/- from the respondents. During the course of trial the petitioner had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 7 as mentioned herein above. The petitioner had sought to call the Sales Tax Officer to produce the sales tax returns, and to give evidence in respect of M/s Indus Mines & Minerals Private Ltd. The petitioner had also sought certain invoices to be produced. The petitioner had also sought that the Income Tax Officer should be examined as witnesses, and should be directed to produce the Income Tax return for the year 2006-07 and 2007- 08. He further prayed that the Mines and Geology Officer, DMG should also be called as witnesses, and should be asked to submit certain invoices for the year 2006-07. However, by

- 4 - the impugned order the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that these documents and these witnesses are essential for throwing light on the controversy involved in the civil suit for recovery of money. Secondly even earlier, the petitioner had filed IA No.6. The said IA was allowed and certain documents were produced. Lastly, since both the witnesses named by the petitioner and the documents sought by him are essential for deciding the controversy, the learned trial Court should have allowed the application. Hence, the impugned order deserves to bet set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. Admittedly, the civil suit was filed in the year 2008, yet the application was not filed till 2015. Needless to say in a suit for recovery of money, it is the fundamental duty of the petitioner to establish his case by both oral and documentary

- 5 - evidence. In his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted the fact that the documents sought by him, under the application, are public documents. He had further claimed that he could get the certified copies of these documents and place the same before the learned trial Court. The petitioner was cross-examined in the year 2012. Yet from 2012 to 2015, he did not take a single step for producing the certified copies of these public documents. Thus, the petitioner has clearly failed to perform his duty before the learned trial Court. 6. Once, the petitioner has admitted that these documents are public documents, and that they can be secured the petitioner, he cannot expect the Court to secure these documents for him. 7. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner has not mentioned in his application as to how these persons who are to be summoned as witnesses would be helpful in shedding light on the controversy involved in the case. Thus, the learned trial Court was justified in

- 6 - concluding that the application is merely a clever ploy to prolong the trail without any valid reason. 8. Since the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 9. This petition, being devoid of merits, is, hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Vmb