- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 115407 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MURIGEPPA S/O. KASHAPPA NARA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/PARTNER OF VP NARA FIRM, ADD: YALLURU, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAKASH S/O. KASHAPPA NARA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ADD: YALLURU, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. S. MOT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE, WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 3/9/2019 ON I.A.NO.10 PASSED IN O.S.NO.186/2011 BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE AND THE JMFC BAGALKOT, VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND REJECT THE IA NO.10 FILED IN O.S NO.186/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE AND THE JMFC BAGALKOT, VIDE ANEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “i. Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated: 03.09.2019 on IA.No.10 passed in O.S.No.186/2011 by the Hon’ble Court of Principal Civil Judge and the JMFC Bagalkot, Vide Annexure-Q, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Reject the IA No.10 filed in O.S.No.186/2011 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of Principle Civil Judge and the JMFC Bagalkot, vide Annexur-K, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Sri.Mrutyunjaya S. Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the partners of plaintiff No.1 firm in OS.No.186/2011 and the said suit was filed against the defendants therein along with other partners for recovery of the money. It is submitted that the petitioner is the 5th plaintiff in the said suit. He presented the plaint on behalf of the partnership firm as well as other partners based on the General Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999. It is further submitted that the suit was further proceeded. The respondent herein is the plaintiff No.3 in the suit, who has retired from the partnership on 31.12.2016, as it is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 evident from the partnership deed produced along with this petition. It is also submitted that the respondent filed private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 is forged and based on such a forged document the petitioner has instituted the suit and also filed other suits. The jurisdictional police filed ‘B’ report on completion of investigation. It is contended that the respondent challenged the ‘B’ report by way of protest. Later, the respondent filed a memo stating that matter is settled between the parties and withdrew the private complaint. It is further contended that the respondent has made an attempt by filing a police complaint against the petitioner. The same was registered as Crime No.181/2018 and the same came to be closed as withdrawn. It is also contended that the respondent filed an application in OS.No.186/2011 seeking prayer to issue direction to the petitioner/plaintiff No.5 to produce the original Power of Attorney on the ground that the Power of Attorney is forged and without the knowledge of the respondent, the suit came to be filed. It is contended that the petitioner filed detailed objections to the said application, specifically contending that the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 is not in possession of the petitioner as the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 same is handed over to the respondent when the matter is settled between the petitioner and the respondent in the criminal proceedings. It is also contended that the trial Court without understanding the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC') allowed the application under the impugned order. It is also contended that the trial Court is firstly required to record the finding with regard to the possession of the document sought to be produced and its relevance to decide the dispute between the parties. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhagawani Devi Mohata Hospital v. A.D.J., Rajgarh and Another1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri.Gourishankar Mot, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the respondent is one of the partners of the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.5, who is the petitioner herein has filed the suit in the year 2011 without the knowledge of the respondent based on the forged Power of 1 AIR 2005 RAJASTHAN 274 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 Attorney dated 23.08.1999. It is submitted that non-production of the original Power of Attorney led to filing a ‘B’ report by the police, which cannot be the basis for the petitioner to deny the production of the original Power of Attorney before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no authority to represent the respondent in the suit. Hence, the respondent filed an application seeking for production of the disputed Power of Attorney. It is also submitted that there are other proceedings pending between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to the partnership firm and the petitioner by suppressing various facts, claimed that the respondent is removed as a partner of the firm and instituted various proceedings. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition by directing the petitioner to produce the document before the trial Court. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 5. The material available on record indicates that OS.No.186/2011 is filed by the M/s. Vishwanath Prakash Nara, General Merchant Commission Agent, which is a partnership firm. The plaint averments indicate that the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the partners of plaintiff No.1 firm. The said suit is for recovery of money against one Sri.Bhimappa and his legal heirs. The said plaint was presented by plaintiff No.5/petitioner herein claiming that he has been authorized to represent the other plaintiffs based on the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999. The said suit was further proceeded. In the said suit the respondent filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking direction to the petitioner/plaintiff No.5 to produce original Power of Attorney as alleged by the plaintiff No.5 in his evidence. To support the said application an affidavit is filed by the respondent. Perusal of the said affidavit indicates that plaintiff No.5 is not appointed as a GPA holder by other partners and plaintiff No.5 created a false and fabricated Power of Attorney deed and the said deed got produced in several cases and obtained the decree from several Courts. It is stated that the Power of Attorney deed is in the custody of plaintiff No.5/petitioner herein. The petitioner opposed the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 application by specifically contending that the Power of Attorney was executed by other plaintiffs and the original Power of Attorney was handed over to the respondent when the compromise was drawn in the private complaint in PC.No.22/2015. It is specifically pleaded in the objection that the original Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 is in the custody of the respondent. The trial Court considering the rival submissions allowed the application under the impugned order. 6. The material on record further indicates that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to the partnership firm. Be that it may, the suit in OS.No.186/2011 is filed by the partnership firm and its partners against one Sri.Bhimappa and his legal heirs for recovery of money. Admittedly, the dispute in the aforesaid suit is not between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The main dispute is with regard to the recovery of money between one Sri.Bhimappa and the partnership firm and its members. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has been removed as a partner from the firm on 31.12.2016 and the partnership was reconstituted. Admittedly, the said contention - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 cannot be gone into in the present proceedings as the parties are adjudicating the said issue in different proceedings. The records also indicate that the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner has fabricated the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999. The Jurisdictional Magistrate referred the private complaint for investigation and on completion of investigation, the Jurisdictional Police filed the ‘B’ report. The ‘B’ report came to be challenged by the respondent by way of protest. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings the respondent filed a memo dated 22.03.2017 stating that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is settled and he withdrew the private complaint. In other words, the dispute with regard to the claim of the respondent that the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 is forged and fabricated has ended in the criminal proceedings by withdrawing the private complaint filed by the respondent. Be that it may, this Court is not recording any finding with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the genuineness of the Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 in the present proceedings. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 7. The question in the present proceedings is with regard to the exercise of power by the trial Court under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. The bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicate that the trial 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 the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the power to be exercised by the trial Court under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is the discretionary power and the trial Court is required to first ascertain as to whether the document sought to produce is in possession or power of the other party or not. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner specifically pleaded in his objection that the original Power of Attorney dated 23.08.1999 is handed over to the respondent during the course of compromise in the criminal proceedings and he has no custody of Power of Attorney. Further, the trial Court ought to have recorded the finding with regard to the necessity of the documents to decide the dispute in question. In the case on hand, the dispute is not between the petitioner and the respondent herein, but the dispute is between the plaintiffs in OS.No.186/2011 against one - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 Sri.Bhimappa for recovery of money. Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the application without understanding the scope and object of Order XI Rule 14 of CPC. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Bhagawani Devi Mohata Hospital referred supra in paragraph Nos.16 to 18 held as under: ”16. Meaning thereby, before ordering even discovery or inspection of the documents, the Court is required to apply its mind so as to find out whether straightaway order can be passed despite the objections raised by the party from whom discovery and inspection of document has been sought. Obviously, it has been provided because of the reason that the party against whom order is sought may have very many objections including the plea that the documents are not in his power or possession. In that situation, unless a finding is recorded that the documents are in power and possession of the party against whom the order is sought, no order even of inspection and discovery can be passed and, therefore, naturally no order for production of document can be passed by the Court which is not in power and possession of any party to the proceedings. 17. Rule 14 also empowers the Court to pass the order only in relation to the documents which are in possession or in power of the party, against whom has been sought. A ‘joint reading of Rule 14 and Rule 20 makes the procedure entirely clear about the manner in which the application for production of the document can be dealt with. 18. In this case, as stated above, the Court ordered production of the document ignoring the objections of the petitioner and, therefore, the order cannot be allowed to stand.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 8. 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 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. 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. 9. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 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. Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Sri.G.P.Srinivasaiah Setty and Others v. Sri.G.M.Ramamruthy2. Moreover, the party seeking the production has also failed to establish the possession of the concerned document with the opposite party. I am also of the view that the document sought to be produced is not relevant to decide the lis between the parties to the suit as the suit is between the plaintiff/firm and defendants for recovery of money. The other contention of the petitioner that the application 2 WP.No.3034/2020 disposed on 18.06.2025 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10865 WP No. 115407 of 2019 has been filed under Section 151 of CPC and not Order XI Rule 14 has no merit. It is important to look at the prayer sought in the application and mere quoting of an incorrect provision in the said application cannot be ground for its dismissal. 10. It is made clear that the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court are restricted only to decide the dispute involved before this Court. It should not have any bearing on the pending suit or other proceedings. In view of the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) Impugned order dated 03.09.2019 passed on IA.No.10 under Order 11 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure in OS.No.186/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC is set aside. iii) Consequently, IA.No.10 file by the respondent is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8