IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAVLQRE DATED THIS THE 19w DAY OE OCTOBER} zcifif' BEFORE J _ THE HONBLE MR. IUSTICE NAGA:§zTQR%A1\Ik'i5;zsEER C.A.E\$O.82S/2010 BEE W EEN: 1 b . T ' I » KARNATAKA STATE FINA NCL_A_L- 'EoRe=jc!fIoN NO}/LTHIMMAEAH R0Ap,_" 5 i BANGALORE-560.052 _ _ REP. BYITS 1111 " ..APPLICANT (By Sri.GURTJRA}f§Q$HI,ADV) _ ' AND: M/S. RELIANCE ~RR'0:11rI C PVT. LTD - (EQ*R'MERLYV%1KNoW2~::..._A...sVM/SHIMADRI ENTERP'PI3ES'P_VT.LTD) %' I~IO:62[2','-RICHMOND ROAD, "'E_ANQALORE-5sG'025 V . sR1'D.Y.MURALIDHARA RAO REP. BY If£fs'CQ:i:sT:TTITED ATTORNEY RESPONDENT
” ‘ – AIOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV.
Sri K.S.MAHA.DEVAN, ADV. FOR OL)
r-.,~”‘
if’
to
THIS APPLICATION IS FILED Ul\lDER RULES_4v9,l_l
19 & 245 or COMPANY (cover) RULES 1959, RM. ’em
0}? CPC.
This application coming on fororders this the
made the foiiowing;
RD”
ICE)
This application is filed by to cross~
examine PW.1 by puttlifxgoa, by way of
interrogatories.
applicant~..l_cross~e§Iamined PW.1 before Civil
Judge Leantel Reser_Vle;Ict:_1I”23§9:2010. In the course of cross»
exaijngination of I>”A[ I1, learned counsel for applicant put a question
»as’ur,1de…r,:
l?*I/I16-£;f2_eI.5′}/ou have called any enquiries or quotation for
I ‘ I rendenTng:.rhe work for the service shown in Ex P40.
Wiearned counsel for the auction purchaser objected
asking this question. The Civil Iudge leave reserve recorded
the question, the objection and the arguments and passed order
sustaining the objections raised by the learned counse} for the
auction purchaser and the same reads as under:
Learned counsel for applicant objects. this i
question to witness stating that for pi’_o1%’ssionjal”seririces’ ‘rendered’
like legal, medical or other professional-.services no; quotationor
in qtii’ri’es need be called for, and iintlier stated leg8i.=sei1vi’ces fee is
also mentioned in the péi’j>’.I2.’i'(-I’I1l”.S””.”l_2tE’ applilrant company,
hence such questions cannot – the other hand
learned counsel for respon’dent”&sub.riii’t_ the question is pertaining
to cozitractorsij_billi involved in Viis.P40 and witness already
replied lt;’1at«il5′.l\f_.,5’he’l;fharv «.isililiTces1sed electrical contractor and the
contractor and the con’t.ract9Work involved enquiry or quotation,
~ . q_ oh?-i?’.and’acceptance,and objections cannot be raised beyond this
»docun;ent._ ~,lb’lZhe learned counsel for applicant submits that
already clarified that EX.P40 relates to professional
serVices,.__rei2dered and no contract is involved. By looking to this
Ex.P40-.tfie court reveals in the said document there is no any
mentioned licensed electrical contract or an y professional
U service rendered by him. Therefore, question of contract by
Calling quotation or enquiries does not arise and objection
;’\_s
Wm
sustained and [earned counsel for respondent directed to par
subsequent question.
4. It is not the case of PW.1 that they haye_
tender and made enquiries and thereafter entrusted wolrk a
under Ex.P40. In such circurnstancest the..q1ieslt’ioii..putlto’iV3?Wil.l
do not arise. The Civil Itidge leave reserve ‘has rig;lhtl§y’v.s,ustained -. V ”
the objections raised by, the iepa.rrre’d_ Counseillforpp auction
purchaser. I find no illegality’ort~pé1?verslit$yf*i,r1l”the order of Civil
Iudge Leave –resc:rvell4§%;tiiileirecordifigthe evidence of PW.1.
5.U 4-Sirlce at Aistibist-arit»i..al” portion of Cross-examination of
PW.l is pver; attl1isl’stage,..lthe applicant cannot be permitted to
by Way of interrogatories on the material
lq.1iestoioiVi’rle_l_ati1ig’to EX.P40. However, the applicant is entitled to
] contilziietthe cross–exarr1ir1ati.on of PW.1 in accordance with law.
” .4ltclcor.dingly, the application is hereby disposed of.
Sd/1
Judge
93i'(‘_’.I3