- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18085 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. NEW DECCAN INTERNATIONAL A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 42, 2ND MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078 REPRESENTED BY MR.RAVINDRA. H. P., PROPRIETOR. ALSO AT NO. 825, DAS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, KANAKAPURA ROAD, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 082. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI SR.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, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 102, EMBASSY PALACE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, 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. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSSED WITH) 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 02.06.2025 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., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner/defendant No.1 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02-06-2025 passed in Commercial OS No. 418 of 2024 answering an application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC seeking production of certain documents. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Guru Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The suit is for recovery of money and delivery of vacant possession of the property. The petitioner is said to be the lessee from the hands of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. After the lease deed executed in favour of the present petitioner, it transpires that the present petitioner/defendant No.1 has executed a sublease with defendant no. 2. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the rights of the lessee or the 1st - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 respondent. An application is filed before the concerned Court by the petitioner seeking production of documents as described in the application. The documents that the petitioner sought to produce from the 1st respondent/plaintiff are as follows: “APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.1 UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 14 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Plaintiff to produce the documents in respect of suit schedule "A" & "B" properties, mentioned below for just and proper adjudication of the suit in the interest of justice and equity. 1. BBMP approved building plan 2. Fire Safety Certificate 3. Fire Safety NOC 4. Occupancy Certificate 5. Building Katha Certificate 6. Building Katha Extract 7. Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.03.2019 entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 M/s. Lemon Pepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. BENGALURU DATE: 18.01.2025 Sd/- ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT No.1 (SWAMINI GANESH)” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 4. The learned senior counsel, Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for petitioner submits that the concerned Court has erred in allowing an application at serial No. 7 while declining all other 6 applications quoted supra. The learned senior counsel would further emphasize on the fact that the approved sanction plan, occupancy certificate, building khatha extract and certificate were imperative to be produced to determine the liability of payment of rent at the hands of the petitioner to the 1st respondent, in terms of the lease deed appended to the petition entered into on 02.04.2016. The learned senior counsel takes this Court through the cross examination of P.W.1. The relevant paragraph of the cross examination reads as follows: “I joined the plaintiff in the year 2002. I joined the plaintiff as a manager. The plaintiff indulges with real estate and construction business. I am not aware about the required permission to be obtained from the concerned authorities in the nature of our business. We have obtained plan sanction and commencement and completion certificates from BBMP with respect to the schedule premises. We have not produced those certificates along with the suit as it was not required. It is false to suggest that plaintiff has not obtained the plan sanction, commencement and completion certificates with respect to the schedule premises….. “ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 In the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted the fact that sanction plan, commencement and completion certificate, are all available and would be given at the appropriate time, if need arises. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent lays emphasis on the fact that those are not necessary documents and would seek to place reliance upon certain judgments of the High Courts to contend that documents that are necessary alone should be directed to be produced. 6. The cross examination of PW1 is as quoted herein above. If it is his case that those documents were available and those documents were necessary to determine the amount of rent that is payable, they are necessary documents for consideration of the issue in the lis before the concerned Court. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent now submits that he does not have those documents. If those documents are not available, the order of the concerned Court permitting production of document No.7, only would now stand to reason, but not the reason so rendered by the concerned Court while - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23632 WP No. 18085 of 2025 declining to accept production of documents at Sl. Nos. 1 to 6, as the actual reason is, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that they are not available. It is for the petitioner to take advantage of the fact that those documents are not available and project his defence before the concerned Court at the appropriate time and the appropriate stage. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54