- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 42863 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.B. FAYAZ AHMED S/O. LATE H. BABU SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT: DOOR NO.1291/1, KHAZA MANZIL, K.T.J. NAGAR, IIND MAIN, DAVANGERE - 577 004. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANA GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A.S. RUDRESH S/O. LATE AIRANI KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT: DOOR NO.201, SKYLARK APARTMENT, M.C.C. "B" BLOCK, DAVANGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAWATE SANTOSH CHANABASAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.177/2018 BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA AND ETC., Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner herein, who is the defendant in OS.No.177/2018 which is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of decree of specific performance of agreement dated 07.10.2015, is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court, by which the Trial Court has directed the petitioner herein to produce the original of the agreement of sale dated 07.10.2015, by the next date of hearing with a further direction that if the defendant failed to produce the original, the plaintiff would be at liberty to produce and rely upon the notarized copy of the said agreement of sale. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition submits that though the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance based on the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 07.10.2015, allegedly executed by the petitioner/defendant, in the written statement, petitioner/defendant has specifically denied the very - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 execution of the said agreement, besides he has also placed in the written statement the facts leading up to coming into existence of the said agreement, preceded by certain financial transaction which the parties had much prior to coming into existence of said agreement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further vehemently submit merely because there is a clause in the agreement providing original of the same to be retained by the petitioner/defendant herein, without adverting to the averments made by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement, the Trial Court ought not to have passed the said order, as the same, would amount to accepting the contents of the document without benefit of trial. Thus, he submits that the petitioner is prejudiced by this finding and the consequent direction issued by the trial Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition by setting aside the order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff taking this Court through the written statement averments and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned order submits that when the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 petitioner/defendant has admitted to he having affixed signatures on certain blank papers, which according to him has been misused by the respondent/plaintiff, no fault or irregularity can be attributed to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which has merely directed the petitioner/defendant to produce the original document. Since there is no dispute with regard to the signature, nothing remained to reject the request of the respondent/plaintiff for direction to produce the original documents. 5. Learned counsel further submits after the petitioner/defendant approached this Court, the said agreement dated 07.10.2015 has already been marked and exhibited as Ex.P1 and matter is now set down for further evidence. Hence, he submits that the petition has become infructuous and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner/defendant to produce the original of the agreement dated 07.10.2015, with a further direction, that if - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 the defendant failed to produce the same, plaintiff would be at liberty to produce the notarised copy of said document. 8. However, while assigning the reasoning in the said order, the Trial Court has found that since, the petitioner/defendant has not disputed his signature and has contended that the respondent/plaintiff had obtained his signatures on blank papers, to be the reason sufficient enough to direct the petitioner/defendant to produce the original document. It is this reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court which has led to filing of this petition. 9. Justifiably, the Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion of petitioner/defendant being in possession of the original document merely because the petitioner/defendant had in the written statement pleaded regarding respondent/plaintiff obtaining his signatures on the blank sheets. That would invariably lead to the inference that the Court accepting the contents of the said document to be true even before the Trial. The Trial Court seem to have lost sight of this aspect of the matter while issuing direction for production of original by the petitioner/defendant. As rightly - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such direction would also result in the presumption being drawn of defendant possessing the original document and yet not complying to the order of the Court having a bearing on the outcome of the suit while appreciating the material evidence. 10. Though the petitioner/defendant, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, has claimed that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers, the same could also not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the agreement in question was indeed executed by the petitioner/defendant. Contents of the document needs to be prove in the manner known to law, even if a signatures are admitted. 11. Be that as it may now, that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has already produced copy of the agreement which has been marked as Ex.P1 and petitioner/defendant denying the contents of the said document and also denying his liability to produce the original in terms of the direction issued by the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that a clarification be issued. In that the reasons and conclusions - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9476 WP No. 42863 of 2019 arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned order while issuing direction to produce the original of the agreement of sale dated 07.10.2015 shall not be construed or inferred against the petitioner/defendant if he is not complying with the same. 12. Further, notwithstanding the order passed by the Trial Court and the order being passed in this writ petition, parties are at liberty to prove and disprove their respective cases by producing such documents and such evidence/witnesses as may be permissible under law, and the Trial Court shall consider the same independently. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK