- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3034/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G.P. SRINIVASAIAH SETTY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. a). G.S. MANJULA AGED 64 YEARS. b). SRI. G.S. SRIDHAR, MAJOR. c). SMT. G.S. PRATHIMA, MAJOR. M/S SRINIVASA PROVISION STORES BIG BAZAR, KOLAR. 2. SMT. G.R. SOLOCHANA AGED 67 YEARS W/O LATE G.P. RAJANNA NO.77, IST C CROSS 3RD BLOCK, RMV 2ND STAGE DEVASANDRA, BANGALORE-560054. 3. SRI. G.R. KRISHNANDA AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE G.P. RAJANNA NO.77, IST C CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RMV 2ND STAGE, DEVASANDRA BANGALORE-560054. 4. SRI. G.P. SURESH BABU AGED 57 YEARS S/O G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY NO.8, ARCOTSRINIVASACHAR STREET BANGALORE-560053. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 5. SRI. G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY AGED 87 YEARS S/O LATE G. PAPAIAH SETTY NO.24, 15TH MAIN, M.C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040 SINCE DECEASED ON 8.6.2023 HIS LR'S ARE: 5(a) G.P. THREJAVATHI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS W/O LATE G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY. 5(b) SMT. A.G. GEETHA D/O LATE G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY W/O SRI. A.P. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 5(c) SMT. RUKMINI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY W/O SRI. T. RAMESH. 5(d) SMT. VENI NAGENDRA D/O LATE G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY W/O SRI. O.V. NAGENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. AT NO.24, 15TH MAIN M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040. 6. SRI. G.P. BALAJI S/O SRI. G.P. PANDURANGA SETTY AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE G. PAPAIAH SETTY NO.24, 15TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.V. DAYANANDA, ADV., FOR PETITIONER AND ALSO P5 (a) to d)) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 AND: SRI. G.M. RAMAMURTHY AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. G.P. MUDDUKRISHNAIAH SETTY R/AT 34, 7TH CROSS SARASWATHIPURAM BANGALORE-560096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI BABU M, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 BY THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (DIST BANGALORE) CCH 39 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: ”(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 24-10-2019 passed on IA No.8 in O.S.No.6740/2008 by the Principal City Civil & Session Judge, at Bangalore, (Dist Bangalore) CCH 39, vide Annexure 'E'. (ii) Issue any other writ or direction to meet the ends of justice. By allowing the above writ petition in the circumstances of the case." 2. Sri.G.V.Dayananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed a suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner No.4/defendant No.4 has filed a detailed written statement specifically contending that a mutual settlement deed was entered between the father of the plaintiff-respondent and other brothers on 31.09.1985. It is further submitted that petitioner No.4 filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 & 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to the respondent to produce original documents sought in the application. However, the trial Court by recording an incorrect finding has rejected the application. It is submitted that the petitioner No.4 has specifically pleaded in his written statement at paragraph No.3 that the four documents sought in the application are in custody of the plaintiff-respondent. However, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the documents may be in custody of Sri.G.P.Panduranga Setty and not with the respondent. The said finding of the trial Court is incorrect and is required to be corrected by setting aside the same and by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 directing the respondent to produce the documents sought. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Murali Babu M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the respondent has filed detailed objections to the application. At paragraph Nos.4 and 5, it is clearly averred that documents 1 to 3 sought in the application are not in the custody of the plaintiff-respondent and they may be in the custody of other defendants. It is submitted that insofar as document No.4 is concerned, it is specifically stated that the business carried out by the defendant No.4 and the plaintiff stopped two decades ago and he does not have any such document. It is submitted that the trial Court considering the said aspects has come to the conclusion that the documents sought in the application are not in the custody of the respondent and rejected the application which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The pleading and material available on record indicate that the respondent filed O.S.No.6740/2008 seeking for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner No.4 being defendant No.4 in the suit, in paragraph No.3 of his written statement has averred that there was a mutual settlement between the father of the plaintiff i.e., Sri.G.P.Muddukrishnaiah Setty and his brothers. The petitioner No.5 is the son of one of the brothers of Sri.G.P. Muddukrishnaiah Setty. It is averred that the properties were settled between the brothers on 31.09.1985 and the original settlement deed is in the custody of the plaintiff-respondent. In paragraph No.4 of the written statement, the petitioner No.4 has explained how the properties were divided among the brothers of Sri.G.P. Muddukrishnaiah Setty. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner No.4 filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 and 16 seeking for production of the original documents claiming them to be in the custody of the respondent. The said application was opposed by the respondent by categorical statement that those documents are not in his custody as he is a neither party nor a signatory to those documents. The trial Court considering the same, has recorded reasons that the document i.e., the mutual settlement deed entered was between the father of the plaintiff-respondent and his brothers and when the respondent specifically denied the custody of such document, there is no justification to order for summoning of the said document. Similarly, for document Nos.2 and 3, the respondent has again taken a stand that they are not in his custody. The trial Court considering the said stand has recorded the finding that the documents may be in the custody of Sri.G.P.Panduranga Setty, who is the father of defendant No.4. I do not find any error in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 said finding of the trial Court. Insofar as document No.4 is concerned, the original sale deed of the house and shop property situated at Doddapete, Kolar, the respondent has made a categorical statement that the said property does not belong to him and he would not be able to produce the documents sought at Sl.No.4. Hence, there is no justification to order for production of documents from the custody of the respondent. 7. It would be useful to extract Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as follows: "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." It is clear from a plain reading of the aforementioned rule that Order XI Rule 14 is a discretionary power vested - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 upon the courts to be used upon satisfaction that the document sought to be produced is necessary to decide the lis between the parties in a suit. Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC empowers the Court to order for production of documents from any party thereto from their custody or control, which are relevant to the case on hand. A party to the suit can seek production of the documents held by opposite party to substantiate their claims or defenses. However, the party claiming for production of documents must establish that the documents sought to be produced are in possession or power of the opposite party and that they are relevant to decide the question involved in the suit. The power to summon the documents under Rule 14 is the discretionary power of the Court. However, the Court shall exercise such discretion judiciously after taking into consideration the averments made in the application and after being satisfied that the documents sought are in the custody of the opposite party and that they are necessary to decide the controversy involved in the case. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 If the documents sought do not pertain to the issues involved in the case, the Court may refuse to order for production of the documents though they may be in custody or power of other party. The Court must evaluate the relevance of the documents and the parties' control over them. The aforesaid mechanism is created for the parties to obtain the documents from the opponent's custody only to facilitate fair trial and it is the Court's discretion to consider such application taking into account the relevant factors referred supra. If upon satisfaction of the Court with regard to the relevance of documents sought to decide the controversy in the case and on further satisfaction of the Court with regard to the custody or power with the other party of such documents and if such other party refuses to produce such a document, then the Court is empowered to compel such a party to produce the documents. In the case on hand, the opposite party has made a categorical statement in the objection that the documents sought are not in his custody as he is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 not the signatory to those documents. Furthermore, the petitioner-defendants have not been able to establish the custody of such documents with the respondent. In view of the said assertion of the opponent to the application, the question of directing him to produce the documents would not arise. 8. Considering these aspects and the stand of the respondent, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that they cannot give any direction to the respondent to produce the documents. I do not find any error in the observation of the trial Court in rejecting the application calling for interference in the present petition. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that they intend to produce the xerox copies of the documents sought for production under the aforesaid application is concerned, the same cannot be gone into in the present proceedings as the same is not the subject matter of the case. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20993 W.P. No.3034/2020 ORDER Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly rejected Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54