ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel Sri. H.S.Dwarkanath on behalf of learned counsel Sri.R.A.Chandrasekhara Reddy for the petitioner and Learned counsel Sri.Ajeesh kumar for caveator/respondent No.1. 2. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6/defendant Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed as no relief is sought against them. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the Commercial Court aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing the applications filed in IA.No.22 and IA.No. 23 in O.S.No.25855/2017 filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC respectively, to further cross examine PW1 and recall the order dated 31.10.2023 and reopen the evidence of the plaintiff. 4. Upon contest, these two applications came to be rejected by the learned judge of the Commercial Court, holding that no proper reasons are made out by the defendant No.1 for the purpose of further cross- examination on certain documents, and he has not given any important instructions on the relevant issues for cross-examination of PW1. The Commercial Court has also come to a conclusion that it is based upon vague grounds and no cogent reasons; the applications are filed only with an intent to protract the proceedings and accordingly, dismissed these two applications. 5. Learned counsel Sri. H.S.Dwarkanath appearing on behalf of defendant No.1, vehemently contends that the impugned orders passed by the Commercial Court are perverse, illegal and arbitrary and the same require to be set aside. An opportunity needs to be given to him to further cross examine PW1 on the aspects that are left out and in view of the subsequent disclosure made by his client to the counsel for defendant No.1, which was not questioned to PW1 in the course of cross-examination. 6. It is further contended that the Commercial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects of the subsequent revelation of certain material facts that would be relevant for the purpose of adjudication in the matter, which was not brought to the notice of the counsel for defendant No.1, due to which he was not aware as to the further cross examination of certain points that were not questioned by the counsel for defendant No.1. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition. Consequently, allow the applications and permit him to cross examine PW1. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition. Consequently, allow the applications and permit him to cross examine PW1. He is also agreeable that if a time limit is fixed, he would certainly adhere to the same by conforming to the Commercial Courts Act and the Rules, as the matter is transferred from the Civil Court to the Commercial Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri.Ajeesh Kumar appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, vehemently objects to the contentions so put forth by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, contending that in the applications filed by defendant No. 1, which are filed under Section 151 of CPC to cross-examine PW1 and another application under Order XVIII Rule 17 to recall PW1 for further cross examination and reopen the evidence of PW1 as the cross-examination of PW1 was closed. 8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel to the respondent No.1/plaintiff that initially the matter was of the year 2017 before the regular Civil Suit Court and thereafter the matter was transferred to the Commercial Court and once the matter is transferred to the Commercial Court, all proceedings would have to proceed from the date of transfer in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Commercial Courts Act and the rules thereunder. So it would not be open to the defendants to take their own sweet time and file applications one after the other to protract and prolong the proceedings and it would not be open for the defendant to make a statement that he was not aware of certain facts that were subsequently brought to his notice. As such, the procedure is not contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act, as he would have to strictly adhere to the timelines prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act to do each of the acts, including cross-examination of PW1. 9. As such, the procedure is not contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act, as he would have to strictly adhere to the timelines prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act to do each of the acts, including cross-examination of PW1. 9. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that it is the fundamental object of the Commercial Courts Act to see that there is no unnecessary delay and protraction of the proceedings and that is why the strict procedure has been laid down to adhere to the specific timelines fixed under the Commercial Courts Act and failing to comply with the statutory requirements and timelines and showing ignorance would not be a ruse for the aggrieved party to seek indulgence of this Court to allow the application, as ignorance is no bliss in the eye of law. 10. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, there is no scope for the defendant No.1 to seek leave of the Court as a matter of right. It is provided to the Court to ask questions and not to the defendant No.1. Therefore, under the circumstances, he contends that the PW1 has been substantially cross examined on the earlier occasion, and thereafter several applications are filed by defendant No.1 and also by the other defendants, who are only trying to protract the proceedings rather than completing the trial. 11. It is also a vehement contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that certain admissions and elicitations are already made in the pleadings and the evidence, which lacuna cannot be filled up by defendant No.1 by way of cross examination. Therefore, questions that have already been posed and answered cannot be re-agitated and posted in the form of further cross examination of PW1. 12. It is also the apprehension of learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that in the guise of further cross examination there will be delay caused in the disposal of the suit, which would be contrary to the very object of the Commercial Courts Act. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of this petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of this petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. This Court is presently concerned with only applications filed in IA.No.22 and 23, and other defendants are not before this Court though they may have filed several applications before the Commercial Court. On careful perusal of the impugned order on the applications filed by the defendant No.1 and the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court, it is apparently seen that the Commercial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that the evidence of PW1 was completed and the evidence of the defendants' side is also completed and the matter is posted for cross examination of DW1 and that nothing specifically has been mentioned by the defendant No.1 with regard to which documents are not in custody and what are the issues that were left out during the cross examination. 14. I am afraid this cannot be the ground to reject the application, as it is the prerogative of the questioning party to keep within himself the question that he would like to put during the cross-examination to the opposite party in the cross-examination and the same cannot be revealed by way of an affidavit, which would serve no purpose and would not be to the benefit of the questioning party, that is, the defendants herein. The other apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that the timelines would be further protracted can be addressed by fixing a specific timeline for the purpose of cross examination so that the trial can be concluded on behalf of defendant No.1. It is also seen that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has voluntarily agreed that he would restrict himself to cross-examination of PW1 on a single day if the opportunity is given and he would not take further time. Therefore, if costs could be imposed for compensating the cross-examination of PW1, the applications could be allowed; thereby, defendant No.1 also would be provided a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW1 on any of the aspects that were not brought to the notice of the counsel in the earlier part of cross-examination of PW1. 15. Therefore, if costs could be imposed for compensating the cross-examination of PW1, the applications could be allowed; thereby, defendant No.1 also would be provided a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW1 on any of the aspects that were not brought to the notice of the counsel in the earlier part of cross-examination of PW1. 15. Further, it is needless to mention that the Commercial Court would be at liberty to carefully understand the question that would be posed by the defendant No.1 to PW1. If it is already answered, the Commercial Court would be at liberty to restrict such questions. So also the same can be objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff if any such question is posed that is already answered and elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and so also any such elicitations or admissions that are admitted by the defendant No.1 that are sought to be now introduced to take away such admissions. Under the circumstances, it would be in the interest of all the parties that a fair opportunity be given to defendant No.1 to further cross examine PW1 on a fixed timeline. Accordingly, I pass the following order. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed on IA Nos.22 and 23 in OS.No.25855/2017 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA Nos.22 and 23 filed by defendant No.1 are allowed. Defendant No.1 shall be permitted to cross examine PW1. 3. The Commercial Court shall fix a date on 02.12.2025 by giving the next date of hearing, adjourning it by 10 days and on that particular date defendant No.1 shall complete the cross examination of PW1 without fail, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff. 4. In view of the fact that the original suit, Commercial OS.No.25855/2017 is of the year 2017, the Commercial Court shall expedite the matter and decide the main matter within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. The learned counsels for both parties are at liberty to mention the operative portion of the order of this Court to the Commercial Court for fixing the next date and further timelines.