Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sivagami N., was the first defendant in a commercial suit (Com.OS 64/2022) pending before the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking certain reliefs. During the trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.XXIV under Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying that the court draw an adverse inference against the plaintiffs for their failure to produce certain documents and that the plaintiffs be denied the right to cross-examine the defendant's witnesses. The trial court, by order dated 21.04.2025, rejected the application. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the senior counsel for the respondents. The court observed that the power to draw adverse inference is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The denial of cross-examination is a serious step that should be reserved for cases of deliberate and contumacious conduct. The trial court had exercised its discretion after considering the facts, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any perversity or arbitrariness in the order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Adverse Inference - Discretion of Trial Court - Order XVIII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner/defendant sought to draw adverse inference against the plaintiffs for non-production of documents and to deny cross-examination. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that drawing adverse inference is not automatic and depends on the facts of each case; denial of cross-examination is a drastic remedy and should not be granted unless there is deliberate and contumacious default. The trial court's discretion was not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 4-6)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with interlocutory orders - The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction. The impugned order rejecting the application for adverse inference and denial of cross-examination was found to be within the trial court's discretion and not warranting interference. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application (I.A.No.XXIV) filed by the defendant/petitioner seeking to draw adverse inference against the plaintiffs for non-production of documents and to deny the plaintiffs the right to cross-examine the defendant's witnesses.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.XXIV.
Law Points
- Adverse inference
- denial of cross-examination
- discretion of trial court
- Order XVIII Rule 2 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 67
Writ Petition No.17796 of 2025 (GM - CPC)
K.B.S. Manian for petitioner, Dhananjay V. Joshi (Senior Advocate) with Vachan H.V. for respondents 1 to 3
M/s. Vinayaka Travels, R. Vijay Kumar, D.S.P Reddy, Shri Anish Dey, Chaithanya Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 21.04.2025 on I.A.No.24 in Com.OS 64/2022 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and to allow the application for drawing adverse inference and denying cross-examination.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioner's application (I.A.No.XXIV) seeking to draw adverse inference against the plaintiffs for non-production of documents and to deny them the right to cross-examine the defendant's witnesses.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected I.A.No.XXIV on 21.04.2025.
Issues
Whether the trial court's rejection of the application for adverse inference and denial of cross-examination was perverse or arbitrary warranting interference under Article 227?
Whether the petitioner had a right to have adverse inference drawn and cross-examination denied as a matter of course?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the plaintiffs failed to produce certain documents and therefore adverse inference should be drawn and they should be denied cross-examination.
Respondents 1 to 3 opposed the application, contending that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion and the order was not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
The power to draw adverse inference is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Denial of cross-examination is a drastic remedy and should be granted only in cases of deliberate and contumacious default. The trial court's discretion in rejecting such an application cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/defendant No.1 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21-04-2025 by which LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejects the application/I.A.No.XXIV filed by the petitioner to draw adverse inference and deny cross-examination to the plaintiffs.
Heard Sri K.B.S.Manian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed I.A.No.XXIV in Com.OS 64/2022 before the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking adverse inference and denial of cross-examination. The trial court rejected the application on 21.04.2025. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard on 18.07.2025 and pronounced on 30.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XVIII Rule 2
- Constitution of India: Article 227
