HIREN CHANDARANA Vs. VIOLET CLOTHING PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No.7988/2012 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore has filed three successive applications under Order VIII, Rule 1 A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [For Short, CPC], and these applications are filed seeking permission to produce the same set of documents, but each of these three applications have ended differently; the first of the application is rejected on a Memo filed by the first defendant, the second of the application is rejected on the ground that the defendant with the said application had not filed the documents that it wanted to produce and third of the application is allowed by the impugned order dated 26.2.2018. The plaintiff has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 26.02.2018.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court ought not to have allowed the third successive and similar application as rejection of the similar earlier applications operated as res judicata, and he also argued that the court ought to have seen that the defendant's conduct in filing successive applications, despite rejection of the earlier similar applications, does not bear any deference to process of judicial proceedings and that on this score alone the third application ought to have been rejected.

(3.) The learned Judge in allowing the application, while considering the contentions urged by the Plaintiff, the petitioner before this court, has reasoned that the second application by the defendant was rejected on the technical ground that the defendant had not filed the documents with such application; and the learned judge has also qualified the allowing of the application with the condition that defendant ought to lead further evidence without fail on the next date of hearing.