- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3777 WP No. 34636 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34636 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. YUVRAJ SINGH, S/O HARJINDER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/A NO. FLAT NO.103, AXIS ASPERIA, FLAT NO. 103, KOTHNUR ROAD, NAVODAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 076. REP. BY HIS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER HARJINDER SINGH. ALSO AT: SRINIVASA KRUPA BUILDING, NO.1/7, (NORTH EAST SHOP) GROUND FLOOR, ASHOKA PILLAR CIRCLE, 100 FEET ROAD, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNAIAH K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI V. M. CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O DR. V.S.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A "SUMITHRA" NO. 934, 20TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRADYUMNA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3777 WP No. 34636 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 14.11.2024 PASSED BY COMMERCIAL COURT BENGALURU IN COM O.S.NO.959/2024 (CCH-85) VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-85), Bangalore, in Commercial O.S.No. 959/2024. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 of CPC seeking for a direction to the defendant to produce original lease agreement dated 01.04.2021. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 05.09.2024. At the time of evidence, defendant filed a memo seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the application - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3777 WP No. 34636 of 2024 filed by the plaintiff under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 is dismissed and the same has attained finality. The memo filed by the defendant has been dismissed by order dated 14.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - defendant has contended that plaintiff's application for direction to the defendant to produce the original Lease Agreement dated 01.04.2021 has been dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 05.09.2024, which order has not been challenged by the plaintiff and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to mark Xerox copy of the said agreement dated 01.04.2021. Inspite of rejection of plaintiff's earlier application, the trial Court has permitted to mark the lease agreement dated 01.04.2021 and dismissed the memo filed by the defendant, which order is contrary to the earlier order passed by the trial court. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3777 WP No. 34636 of 2024 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff - respondent has contended that earlier order passed by the trial Court rejecting his request for a direction to the defendant to produce original agreement dated 01.04.2021, will not create any bar to the plaintiff to mark Xerox copy of the rent agreement dated 01.04.2021 as a secondary evidence. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the memo filed by the defendant. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 of CPC for a direction to the defendant to produce the original lease deed dated 01.04.2021 has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 05.09.2024. Now the plaintiff wants to mark Xerox copy of the rent agreement dated 01.04.2021 as a secondary evidence. The trial Court has permitted to mark the document as a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3777 WP No. 34636 of 2024 secondary evidence and held that the validity of the document will be considered at the time of final hearing and all the contentions of the parties regarding marking of the documents have been kept open. Therefore, it will not cause any prejudice to the right of the petitioner at this stage. There is no error in the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE VP