ORDER : (M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.) The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2024 by which the concerned Court rejects application Nos.18 and 19 seeking recommencement of the evidence from the stage of defense evidence to the stage of cross examination and also recall of PW.1 for further cross examination. 2. Heard Sri.X.M.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for Sri.Vinay N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: (a) The petitioner is defendant No.11. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Defendant No.11 is the wife of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs institutes a commercial suit in Commercial O.S.No.352/2020 for the purpose of recovery of money. The backdrop of the claim is that the plaintiffs enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with defendant No.11, petitioner and other respondents for establishment of the hospitality projects in trade name "Purlieu" and "Moonglade". (b) Dispute between the two with regard to recovery of money leads the plaintiffs to the Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.352/2020. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the money of the claim or the defense of the petitioner. In the proceeding, two applications are filed by the petitioner- defendant No.11 in I.A.Nos.18 and 19 to recall the case from the stage of closing evidence of plaintiffs and begin the defense evidence and further cross-examination of PW.1 to be recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination. The concerned Court rejects both applications, the rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order passed by the concerned Court is opposed to law and several settled principles in plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. He would reiterate the submissions made before the concerned Court to buttress his submission that the applications deserve to be allowed, but have been dismissed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.P.N.Manmohan representing the respondent No.2 would take this court through the dates and events and contend that the petitioner is deliberately wanting to file these applications only to protract the proceedings and would submit that several dates have passed by where the examination or cross-examination has not been done. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.P.N.Manmohan representing the respondent No.2 would take this court through the dates and events and contend that the petitioner is deliberately wanting to file these applications only to protract the proceedings and would submit that several dates have passed by where the examination or cross-examination has not been done. Learned counsel Sri.X.M.Joseph, appearing for the petitioner would join the issue contending that the ground on which the concerned Court has rejected the applications is that defendant No.11 has not filed her Written Statement. He would contend that non-filing of the Written Statement cannot be a reason to strike off defense or right to cross-examine. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. 8. In the light of the contention that the reason rendered by the concerned Court is not filing of the Written Statement, I deem it appropriate to notice the reasons so rendered. "07. Point No.1: In support of the application No.18 and 19 Smt.Divya Girish/D11, the Director of the defendant No.1 company has sworn to an affidavit. 08. In the affidavit it is averred that on 02.04.2024, PW.1 was fully cross-examined by the advocate for defendant No.2. That the counsel representing defendant No.11 was present throughout the course of cross- examination of PW.1 by defendant No.2 counsel. That the counsel for defendant No.11 was not keeping well as such he was not in a position to cross-examine the PW.1 on that date even though Court had some time to take the case for cross-examination by defendant No.11. 09. That the defendant No.1l has got good case on merits and if opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 is not accorded then she will suffer loss and injury. Hence, defendant No.11 prays to allow both the applications in the interest of justice and equity. 10. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have filed common objections to IA No.18 and 19 contending that the applications are totally misconceived and an abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Court and are liable to be dismissed with cost. 11. Hence, defendant No.11 prays to allow both the applications in the interest of justice and equity. 10. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have filed common objections to IA No.18 and 19 contending that the applications are totally misconceived and an abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Court and are liable to be dismissed with cost. 11. It is further contended that the instant suit was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 03.06.2023 and the defendant No.2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 filed an application on the very same day seeking for rejection of affidavit evidence of plaintiff tendered through plaintiff No.2 knowing fully well that PW.1 had traveled from Oman to Bengaluru for the purpose of cross-examination. The said application was filed to drag the proceedings and to harass PW.1. The PW.1 who lives in Oman and travels to Bengaluru incurs heavy travel expenses and has to make arrangements for stay in the city. This Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 27.06.2023 has rejected the said application by imposing Rs..5,000/ - cost on the said defendants and adjourned the case for cross-examination of PW.1 on 17.07.2023. 12. On 17.07.2023 (Correct date 16.07.2023) though PW.1 was present before this Hon'ble Court, with an object of delaying the suit the defendant No.2 counsel who also represents defendant No.11 filed an application under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC seeking an adjournment. This Hon'ble Court rejected the said application and had orally observed that PW.1 is traveling from Oman to Bengaluru for cross-examination and that it was made clear on the last hearing date that no further adjournment would be entertained and closed the cross-examination of PW.1 and adjourned the matter for defendants evidence on 04.08.2023. 13. It is further contended that in the meantime the defendant No.2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 had filed a Writ Petition No.17363/2023 challenging the affidavit evidence of PW.1 and the Honble High Court was pleased to reject the petition on 21.12.2023. Pursuant to the order of rejection, defendant No.6 on behalf of defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 had filed IA No.16 and 17 seeking to reopen the stage of cross-examination of PW.1. Pursuant to the order of rejection, defendant No.6 on behalf of defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 had filed IA No.16 and 17 seeking to reopen the stage of cross-examination of PW.1. The plaintiffs filed a memo dated 29.01.2024 as objections to the said applications contending that "The defendants are trying to drag the suit and the plaintiffs apprehend that after defendant No.6 cross-examines PW.1 and other defendants will file similar applications". On 01.02.2024 the counsel for defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 submitted that IA No.16 and 17 was filed by the defendant No.6 on behalf of defendant No.2, 4, 7, 8 and 11 and hence an opportunity may be given to the defendants to cross-examine PW.1. This Hon'ble Court allowed the applications and reopened the case for the purpose of of cross-examination and adjourned the case to 26.02.2024. 14. It is further contended that on 26.02.2024 counsel for defendant No.1 filed joint vakalath along with counsel for defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 and cross-examined PW.1 in part and the case was adjourned to 26.03.2024 for further cross-examination of PW.1 The plaintiffs advanced the case from 26.03.2024 to 15.03.2024 and filed an application to fix dates for further cross- examination of PW.1 by all the defendants as the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants may again seek an adjournment an 26.03.2024 and delay the proceedings. This Hon'ble Court on 15.03.2024 heard both the parties and orally directed the defendants to complete cross-examination of PW.I 0? 26.03.2024 without seeking any adjournments. However, the said defendants cross-examined PW.1 in part and again sought time for further cross-examination of PW.1 and the case was adjourned to 02.04.2024 and had orally submitted that defendant No.11 would adopt the cross- examination of defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8. It is pertinent to note that on 02.04.2024 counsel for the defendants No.2, 4, 6 to 8 completed cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, it is clear from the above facts that the defendants are dragging the suit on one pretext or the other making it clear that the applications lack bonafides and are liable to be dismissed with costs. 15. It is pertinent to note that on 02.04.2024 counsel for the defendants No.2, 4, 6 to 8 completed cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, it is clear from the above facts that the defendants are dragging the suit on one pretext or the other making it clear that the applications lack bonafides and are liable to be dismissed with costs. 15. A bare perusal of the order sheets dated 20.03.2023, 17.07.2023 (correct date 16.07.2023), 27.11.2023, 28.11.2023, 26.02.2024, 26.03.2024, 02.04.2024 shows that PW.1 who travels from Oman to Bengaluru was present before this Hon'ble Court on 7 occasions for the purpose of cross-examination and despite this Hon'ble Courts and Hon'ble High Courts direction to the parties to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit, the defendant No.2, 4, 5 to 8 and 11 are trying to delay the proceedings in one or the other way. 16. The defendant No.11 is none other than the wife of the defendant No.2 had filed these applications solely with an intention of harassing PW.I in as much as PW.I has to travel from Oman to Bengaluru for the purpose of cross-examination. Hence, the applications are devoid of merits and no ground whatsoever is made out to recall PW. 1. The order is well reasoned and is not liable to be recalled. 17. All other averments made in the applications which are not specifically traversed are hereby denied as false and baseless. By contending so the plaintiffs prays to dismiss the application with exemplary cost. 18. On going through the rival contentions urged by both the parties I would like to go through the order sheet wherein it appears the plaintiff No.2 has filed her affidavit evidence in lieu of her examination in chief on 23.01.2023. Further it appears on many occasions the case was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 (7 occasions) and when the defendant No.11 failed to avail her opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 the stage was closed and adjourned for defendant evidence. 19. In this case admittedly the defendant No.11 has not filed her written statement. The order sheet The order sheet reveals that on number of occasions PW.1 has been recalled at the instance of other defendants. The PW.1 admittedly resides in Oman and she has to come to the Court all the way from Oman by incurring huge expenses. 19. In this case admittedly the defendant No.11 has not filed her written statement. The order sheet The order sheet reveals that on number of occasions PW.1 has been recalled at the instance of other defendants. The PW.1 admittedly resides in Oman and she has to come to the Court all the way from Oman by incurring huge expenses. The defendant No.11 without filing her written statement is seeking to cross-examine PW.l that too without urging proper grounds. The reasons assigned by defendant No.11 in her affidavit that her advocate was not feeling well as he was sitting under hot weather condition, sitting under the fan he developed severe headache as he is allergic to fan and suffers from sinusitis is not a valid ground to recall PW. 1. 20. The plaint cause title reveals that the defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.11 and the defendant No.2 has already cross-examined PW.1 by filing recall application IA No.16 and 17. The PW.1 has been cross- examined by the defendant No.2 on 26.02.2024, 26.03.2024 and 02.04.2024. The order sheet reveals that defendant No.11 is also represented by the same counsel appearing for defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8. 21. In this case there was no impediment to the counsel appearing for defendant No.11 to adopt the cross- examination which he has personally done on behalf of defendant No.2, 4, 6 to 8. It is not the case of the defendant No.11 th?t she has got any other defense other than that is mentioned in the written statement filed by her husband defendant No.2. It is worthwhile once again to note that defendant No.11 has not at all filed her written statement. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendant No.11 intentionally wants to protract and drag on the proceedings. Hence, the applications filed by defendant No.11 being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed by imposing suitable costs. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE. 22. Point No.2: In view of above discussion on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The IA No.18 filed under Section 151 of CPC and IA No.19 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC by the defendant No.11 to reopen the case and recall PW.1 is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs..5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)." 9. Point No.2: In view of above discussion on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The IA No.18 filed under Section 151 of CPC and IA No.19 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC by the defendant No.11 to reopen the case and recall PW.1 is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs..5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)." 9. The concerned Court clearly records the dates on which the examination and cross-examination were permitted and the petitioner not availing it. In the last paragraph, it is observed that the defendant No.11 has not at all filed her Written Statement. It is only a stray sentence drawn in into the order as the tenor and purport of the order nowhere indicates that the reason for declining the application is non-filing of the Written Statement. Therefore, the said observation is of no avail or would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to claim that he is entitled to the relief sought in the applications. Even otherwise, the dates and events would assume significance in the case at hand. The suit is of the year 2020. Issues were framed on 02.01.2023. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed detailed dates and events that have happened in the case at hand. 10. I deem it appropriate to paraphrase the same. 11. If the dates and events are noticed, it prima facie depicts the abuse of the process of law by defendant No.11. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court which is based on cogent and sound reasoning. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.