- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42612 WP No. 30474 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30474 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. KALYANA SUNDARAM S/O. LATE SUBRAMANYANI, AGE 43 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHAVYA B.V., W/O. S. KALYANA SUNDARAM AGE 41 YEARS., BOTH ARE R/O. NO.22, 16TH CROSS, JOGI PALYA, NEAR ULSOOR METRO STATION, BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. DEEKSHA N. AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. G.U. SURESH, S/O. LATE GOUDANLA G.M. UTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.21/1, 4TH CROSS C/O. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, APPAREDDYPALYA, NEAR AMMAS PASTRY DOUBLE ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 38. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42612 WP No. 30474 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.3-9-2025 IN OS 25283/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL BENGALURU (CCH NO.75) IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Deeksha N. Amruthesh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 25283/2024 on the file of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court'), challenging the order dated 03.09.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of certain documents has been rejected. 3. Smt. Deeksha N. Amrutesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the suit has been filed against the petitioner-defendants seeking a decree of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42612 WP No. 30474 of 2025 permanent injunction, declaration that the sale agreement is not binding on the plaintiffs, and for a direction restraining the petitioner-defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel submits that the title of the petitioners to the suit schedule property itself is in dispute, and the documents sought to be produced are necessary for adjudication of the said dispute. Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that the suit is presently at the stage of recording the evidence of PW.1. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, without appreciating the necessity of the said documents, has erroneously rejected the application. 4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners seeking various reliefs, including a decree of injunction. It is needless to observe that the burden to prove the averments made in the plaint rests upon the plaintiff, and the petitioners have the right to disprove the plaintiff’s case at the stage of the defendants’ evidence. If the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42612 WP No. 30474 of 2025 defendants are of the view that the documents in question, which are in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff, are necessary to demonstrate their case, it would be open to the petitioners to make a similar prayer at the appropriate stage. An application for production of documents at this stage, even before the plaintiff’s evidence, is premature. The Trial Court, having considered the aforesaid aspects, has rightly rejected the application. 6. In light of the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20