Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the LXXXII ACCJ, Bangalore (CCH-83) in Commercial O.S. No.5387/2011. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's request for time to cross-examine PW-3 in the suit. The petitioner contended that despite seeking time for genuine reasons, the Trial Court did not appreciate the circumstances and proceeded to reject the request. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that heavy stakes of about Rs.35 Crores were involved and that sufficient opportunity had already been granted. The High Court, after hearing both sides, set aside the impugned order and granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-3, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000 to the respondent, to be paid on the next date of hearing. The Court directed the Trial Court to fix a date for cross-examination and proceed with the suit thereafter.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Adjournment for Cross-Examination - Last Opportunity - The petitioner sought time for cross-examination of PW-3 in a commercial suit, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court set aside the order, granting one last opportunity to cross-examine PW-3 subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000 to the respondent, to be paid on the next date of hearing. (Paras 2-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting adjournment, as the petitioner had genuine reasons for seeking time and the stakes involved were high (Rs.35 Crores). (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's request for adjournment to cross-examine PW-3 in a commercial suit, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is set aside. The petitioner is granted one last opportunity to cross-examine PW-3 subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000 to the respondent, to be paid on the next date of hearing. The Trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination and proceed with the suit thereafter.
Law Points
- Right to cross-examination
- Adjournment for cross-examination
- Last opportunity
- Cost imposed
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order 18 Rule 17A
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 188
Writ Petition No.28452/2019 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Sundara Raman M.V. for petitioner, Dr. Nanda Kishore for respondent
Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited (earlier known as Skol Breweries Limited, thereafter SABMiller India Limited)
Mysore Sales International 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 order of the Trial Court rejecting request for adjournment for cross-examination in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the LXXXII ACCJ, Bangalore in Commercial O.S. No.5387/2011, and for grant of opportunity to cross-examine PW-3.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's request for time to cross-examine PW-3 despite genuine reasons.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court passed the order on 04.06.2019 rejecting the request for adjournment.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's request for adjournment to cross-examine PW-3?
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that despite seeking time for cross-examination of PW-3 for genuine reasons, the Trial Court did not appreciate and rejected the request.
Respondent opposed the petition, stating that heavy stakes of about Rs.35 Crores are involved and sufficient opportunity was already granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can set aside an order of the Trial Court that rejects a request for adjournment for cross-examination if the reasons are genuine and the stakes are high, subject to imposition of cost to compensate the other party.
Judgment Excerpts
Though this matter is listed for hearing on I.A. for vacating interim order, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner has questioned the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by LXXXII ACCJ, Bangalore (CCH-83) in Commercial O.S. No.5387/2011.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though on behalf of petitioner sought time for cross-examination of PW-3 in the aforesaid suit, for one or the other genuine reasons the Trial Court has not appreciated and proceeded to reject the request of the petitioner and passed the order on 04.06.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the relief sought in the present writ petition on the score that heavy stakes is involved in the matter for about sum of Rs.35.00 Crores.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is set aside. Petitioner is hereby granted one last opportunity to cross-examine PW-3 subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the LXXXII ACCJ, Bangalore in Commercial O.S. No.5387/2011, which rejected the petitioner's request for time to cross-examine PW-3. The High Court heard the matter and disposed it on 13.07.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 17A
