- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16054 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMANI D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT JEEVANADHI SAROVAR NO.09, FLAT NO.202, LAKE ROAD BYRASANDRA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 093. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAJA BAGMANE S/O LATE B.C.CHANDRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.7/2, LANGFORD GARDENS BENGALURU – 560 025. 2. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJA BAGMANE, 8TH FLOOR ‘A’ BLOCK, LAKE VIEW BAGMANE TECH PARK C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 093. 3. SRI NAGARAJ B. N., S/O BYRAPPA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT SUDDAGUNTE PALYA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 093. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANDESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE ORDER DTD. 15.03.2025 O.S NO.6687/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, MARKED AS ANNX-A MAY BE QUASHED BY WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION IA NO.X UNDER O.16 R.6 OF CPC FOR SECURING THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE IN THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENTS AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.03.2025, passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, by which, an application – I.A.No.10 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking production of an agreement, in O.S.No.6687/2016, comes to be rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 2. Heard Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Sri Sandesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is plaintiff No.2; institutes a suit in O.S.No.6687/2016 seeking declaration and injunction against the respondents - defendants. The suit has travelled thus, far for close to 9 years and an application comes to be filed by the petitioner in IA No.10 under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking production of a document – agreement, which according to the petitioner would be imperative for resolution of the issue in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his submission takes this Court through the cross-examination of DW.1. The relevant portion of the cross-examination on which the petitioner places reliance upon reads as follows: ““““ಮುಂದುವೆದ ಮುಂದುವೆದ ಮುಂದುವೆದ ಮುಂದುವೆದ ಾೕ ಾೕ ಾೕ ಾೕ ಸಾಲು ಸಾಲು ಸಾಲು ಸಾಲು: ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಪರಾ ಪರಾ ಪರಾ ಪರಾ ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ ೆ ವೕಲಂದಃ ೆ ವೕಲಂದಃ ೆ ವೕಲಂದಃ ೆ ವೕಲಂದಃ ಾನು ಕಯಪತದ ಾಂಕ ೆನ#ಲ$ೆಂದು %ಂನ &ಾರ'ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ($ )ೇ*ದು+ ಆ ಕಯಪತವನು- ಾ./ಾಲಯೆ0 )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು ನನ3ೆ /ಾವ45ೇ 6ೊಂದೆ ಇರುವ4ಲ$. ಪ9ಾ ನಂ. 3 ಮತು: ಮೃತ 3ೋಂದಪ<ರವ3ೆ /ಾವ ೕ9 ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇ5ೆ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 ಎಂದು ನನ3ೆ UÉÆwÛ®è. CªÀj§âgÀ ನಡುೆ @PÉÛ/ಾರು ಾAಯ ವ.ವ)ಾರಾದು+ ನನ3ೆ 3ೊ9:ಲ$. ಆಆಆಆ @ @ @ @PÉÛ/ಾರು /ಾರು /ಾರು /ಾರು ಾAಯನು- ಾAಯನು- ಾAಯನು- ಾAಯನು- )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ ಇ5ೆBೕ ಇ5ೆBೕ ಇ5ೆBೕ ಇ5ೆBೕ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೇ*5ಾಗ ೇ*5ಾಗ ೇ*5ಾಗ ೇ*5ಾಗ DಾEಯು DಾEಯು DಾEಯು DಾEಯು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ತ#< ತ#< ತ#< ತ#< FFFF #### ಎಎಎಎ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು )ೇ*ದು+ )ೇ*ದು+ )ೇ*ದು+ )ೇ*ದು+ ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಪತಾರುತ:5ೆ ಪತಾರುತ:5ೆ ಪತಾರುತ:5ೆ ಪತಾರುತ:5ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನು2ಯು6ಾ:ೆ ನು2ಯು6ಾ:ೆ ನು2ಯು6ಾ:ೆ ನು2ಯು6ಾ:ೆ. ಆಆಆಆ ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- ಾ. ಾ. ಾ. ಾ./ಾಲಯದ /ಾಲಯದ /ಾಲಯದ /ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ5ೆ ಮುಂ5ೆ ಮುಂ5ೆ ಮುಂ5ೆ )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು )ಾಜರುಪ2ಸಲು ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ /ಾವ45ೇ /ಾವ45ೇ /ಾವ45ೇ /ಾವ45ೇ 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ 6ೊಂದೆ ಇರುವ4ಲ$ ಇರುವ4ಲ$ ಇರುವ4ಲ$ ಇರುವ4ಲ$. /ಾವ /ಾವ /ಾವ /ಾವ ಇಸಯ($ ಇಸಯ($ ಇಸಯ($ ಇಸಯ($ ಮತು: ಮತು: ಮತು: ಮತು: /ಾಾಗ /ಾಾಗ /ಾಾಗ /ಾಾಗ ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- ಪತವನು- Hಾ25ಾ+ೆ Hಾ25ಾ+ೆ Hಾ25ಾ+ೆ Hಾ25ಾ+ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$. ಎಷುL ಎಷುL ಎಷುL ಎಷುL ಪ9ಫಲದ ಪ9ಫಲದ ಪ9ಫಲದ ಪ9ಫಲದ AೕJೆ AೕJೆ AೕJೆ AೕJೆ ಅವಬNರ ಅವಬNರ ಅವಬNರ ಅವಬNರ ನಡುೆ ನಡುೆ ನಡುೆ ನಡುೆ ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಪತಾತು: ಪತಾತು: ಪತಾತು: ಪತಾತು: ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ ನನ3ೆ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$ )ೇಳJಾಗುವ4ಲ$. ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಆಆಆಆ ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಕಾರು ಪತವನ- ಪತವನ- ಪತವನ- ಪತವನ- ೋ2ರುವ4ಲ$ ೋ2ರುವ4ಲ$ ೋ2ರುವ4ಲ$ ೋ2ರುವ4ಲ$. ಾದಪತದ ಸO9:3ೆ ಸಂಬಂPQದಂ6ೆ 5ಾಖJಾ9ಗಳನು- ನನ- ಕಂ¥À¤ಯವರು ಪೕ(Qರು6ಾ:ೆ. ನನ- ಕಂಪSಯವೆಂದೆ ಾTಾ Uಾಗಮೆ ಯವಾರು6ಾ:ೆ. ಈ DಾE &ಾರ'ೆ3ೆ ಬರುವ @ದಲು ಾನು ಾTಾ Uಾಗಮೆಯವಂದ ಸOಲ< &ಾರ 9*ದುೊಂ2ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಾದಪತದ ಾದಪತದ ಾದಪತದ ಾದಪತದ ಸO9:3ೆ ಸO9:3ೆ ಸO9:3ೆ ಸO9:3ೆ ಸಂಬಂPQ ಸಂಬಂPQ ಸಂಬಂPQ ಸಂಬಂPQ ಕಂಪSಯ($ ಕಂಪSಯ($ ಕಂಪSಯ($ ಕಂಪSಯ($ /ಾ /ಾ /ಾ /ಾವವವವ /ಾವ /ಾವ /ಾವ /ಾವ 5ಾಖJೆಗಳW 5ಾಖJೆಗಳW 5ಾಖJೆಗಳW 5ಾಖJೆಗಳW ಇ5ೆ ಇ5ೆ ಇ5ೆ ಇ5ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು 9*ದುೊಂ2ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ 9*ದುೊಂ2ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ 9*ದುೊಂ2ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ 9*ದುೊಂ2ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. (Emphasis added) On the strength of the said cross-examination of DW.1, comes the application in I.A.No.10. This is answered by the concerned Court, rejecting the same on the following reasons: “…. …. …. REASONS 8. POINT NO.1: On perusal of the accompanying affidavit, objection and entire materials on record, the plaintiffs have contended that, the father of the plaintiff No.2 has not executed any agreement in favour of defendant No.3 and in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the D.W.1 has not produced said document and the said document is necessary to prove their case. The defendant No.2 has contended that its officials have conducted search in office lockers of company and same is not readily traceable and inspite of best efforts of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 company officials, they are unable to trace said document in office lockers of company and there is no Issue framed with regard to validity or legal nature of the agreement of the sale in question. On perusal of material on record, the plaintiffs have filed this case against defendants seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The principles laid down in the above respected Judgments are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Looking to nature of this suit, facts and circumstances of this suit, the plaintiffs have not made out to allow I.A.No.10. This matter is oldest matter. Hence, plaintiffs have not made out grounds to allow I.A.No.10 Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that defendant No.2 has contended that the officials have conducted a search in the office lockers of the company and the same is not readily traceable, inspite of their best efforts and holds that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is his burden to prove for the relief he has sought for before the concerned Court and therefore, the application comes to be rejected. 5. Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the contentions made in the application – I.A.No.10 to contend that the document has to be produced - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 before the concerned Court, which is in the custody of the respondents. 6. Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 refuting the submissions would contend that the document which is not at their possession cannot be compelled to be produced and he places reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED v SHIVAKUMAR T.WADHWA1, wherein, an identical issue is considered and held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) and the second respondent have filed application IA No. 22, after the conclusion of the evidence when the matter is posted for arguments. 9. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application is not maintainable under R. 6 of Or. 16 of the CPC. The said Rule states that any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. The expression ‘any person’ includes a party to the proceedings. The application cannot be rejected on the 1 2013 SC OnLine Kar 7057 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 ground of maintainability. The document has already been produced along with the writ petitions referred to above. The petitioners cannot contend at this stage that the agreement contains certain confidential clauses. 10. But the question is whether the court below is justified in entertaining the application and directing the petitioners to produce the agreement? 11. As noticed above, the preliminary notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 2-6-1999. The agreement is dated 16-7-2008. for the determination of the compensation, the Court has to take into consideration the date of issuance of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. The Apex Court in RAVINDER NARAIN's case (supra) and KARIGOWDA's case (supra), has held that the requisites for a sale to merit consideration as a comparable sale are when the sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under S. 4(1). Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that the agreement has been cancelled. Even if it is assumed that the agreement has not been cancelled, since it was executed after nine (9) years from the date of the preliminary notification, it cannot be relied on for the purpose of determination of compensation. 12. Secondly, the agreement has not matured into a sale transaction. The Apex Court in JAINUL ISLAM's case (supra) has held that unless the agreement of sale has not matured into a sale transaction, not much assistance could be derived from the agreement in the matter of determination of market value of the acquired land. Therefore, there in no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the private respondents that the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement can be an indicator for determination of the market value.” (Emphasis supplied) After the said judgment, two of the other coordinate benches would follow suit in W.P.No.9903/2014 disposed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 on 26.03.2014 in the case of K.M.PRABHU VS. BURMA SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED and in W.P.NO.12896/2017 DISPOSED ON 06.12.2017, in the case of G. SRINIVASA VS. TOWN SAHAKARA SANGHA, have also held by observing that the document that is not in the custody or traceable, cannot be compelled to be produced. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner would place entire reliance on the bleak cross-examination of DW.1, who does not unequivocally depose that the document is in his custody; he would say that the general power of attorney or the agreement as the case would be, will be produced and again clarifies that he has never seen the said document. 8. In the light of the cross-examination which is not free from ambiguity, the petitioner cannot make a foundation on the application on the basis of the cross-examination of DW.1 but has to prove his case by placing the evidence before the Court. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court on the application – I.A.No.10. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25674 WP No. 16054 of 2025 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SS