- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8248 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S NEW DECCAN INTERNATIONAL A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING IT'S OFFICE AT NO.42, 2ND MAIN ROAD DOLLARS LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 078. REPRESENTED BY MR. RAVINDRA H.P ALSO AT NO.825, DAS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX KANAKAPURA ROAD, 7TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 082. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PLEASANT VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 102, EMBASSY PALACE CUNNINGHAM ROAD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.JAGADISH. V, MANAGER. 2. M/S LEMON PEPPER HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.30 OLD NO.1, 2ND FLOOR CHURCH STREET, CIVIL STATION BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GURU PRASANNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 20.03.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN I.A. NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 14 OF CPC DATED: 14.02.2025 IN COM. O.S. NO.418/2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH- 86) COMMERCIAL COURT (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.X filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.418/2024, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. On service of suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared through counsel, but has not filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Parties have adduced their evidence. After completion of evidence of parties, defendant No.1 has filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.X under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking direction to the plaintiff to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 produce the documents as enumerated in the list. The Trial Court, by impugned order has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by defendant No.1. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner- defendant No.1 has contended that the Trial Court has failed to exercise the discretionary power vested under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC and has erred in dismissing the application only on the ground that the defendant No.1 has not filed any written statement. He contended that as per the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, the Court has to look into two aspects, one is whether the documents sought by the parties are in possession of the parties and the other is whether the documents are related to the present case. There is no such finding given by the Trial Court on these aspects and has erred in dismissing the application. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff has contended that petitioner-defendant No.1 has not filed any written statement and has not denied the pleadings of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of seeking direction for production of documents by the plaintiff. Since the defendant No.1 has not filed any written statement defending his case, he cannot seek for production of documents. The documents, which the defendant No.1 has sought for the plaintiff to produce are not relevant to the present case. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, he sought for dismissal of writ petition. 5. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the writ papers. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 6. Defendant No.1 has filed I.A.No.X under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC directing the plaintiff to produce documents as enumerated in the list. 7. For clarity, the provision of Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is reproduced below: “14. Production of documents.—It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. 8. By plain reading of the above said provision, it is very clear that it is the discretionary power of the Court to order for production of documents and is subject to two conditions being satisfied, namely, (1) the documents, the production of which is sought for, must - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 be in possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought for and (2) the documents must relate to the controversy involved in the suit. 9. The Trial Court has not given any such finding in respect of the above two aspects while passing the impugned order. Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by defendant No.1 has to be reconsidered afresh and in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.X filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.418/2024, is set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11570 WP No. 8248 of 2025 c) The Trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.X filed by defendant No.1 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC on the next date of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and after giving opportunities to both the parties, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. d) Parties are directed not to seek for any adjournments and shall proceed with the matter. e) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. All pending I.As. in this writ petition, if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1