- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2863 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRIPAL NAHAR S/O S C NAHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 A 2ND MAIN ROAD PRASHANTHNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHYLA JADHAV W/O DR J A JADHAV AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.80, 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM NO.155/41 KUMARA NURSERY BANGALORE – 560 003. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ORDER DATED 02.11.2021 MADE ON I.A. (ORDER ON APPLICATION DATED 01.10.2021) PRODUCED AT ANNEX IN O.S.NO.8345/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. CITY AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-19) AND ETC. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – plaintiff in O.S.No.8345/2010, is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.11.2021, passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19), whereby, an application – I.A.No.17 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, by the plaintiff, seeking to produce certain documents, is rejected. 2. Heard Sri P.D.Surana, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Krishna Swamy S., learned counsel for respondent. 3. The plaintiff files an application – I.A.No.17 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, to produce two documents: “1) Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.2802/2004, dated 1/3/2014 recording the statement on behalf of the Ideal Homes Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. That they have no evidence to produce in said O.S.No.2802/2004 which is pending before this Hon’ble Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 2) Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 04-09-2003 executed by Smt. Shanthamma and others in favour of Sri K.B.Lakshman, Sri L.Ravi and Sri L. Sridhar.” The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned rejects the same on the score that the relevancy of production of those documents is not stated. 4. Sri P.D.Surana, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that those documents would be required for the defense of the petitioner and reason for filing of the application for production of the said documents is clearly brought out in the affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that those documents that the petitioner seeks to place on record now, through the application is not concerning the present suit. Therefore, it is of no relevance of those documents to the subject suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and they lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner – plaintiff files an application as observed hereinabove under Order VII Rule 14 (3) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking production of the afore-quoted two documents. The documents according to the petitioner as averred in the affidavit is necessary in aid to the suit so filed for injunction. The affidavit of the petitioner is as follows: “3. I submit that I have secured certified copy of order sheet in 0.S.No.2802/2004 filed by The Ideal Homes Co-Operative Housing Building Society Ltd., The suit property in the above suit is also one of the property involved in O.S.No.2802/2004. The plaintiff in said O.S.No.2802/2004 has made a statement that they have no evidence to lead and the same is recorded and the case was posted for defendants evidence and defendants in O.S.No.2802/2004 has lead their evidence. The said fact is required to be taken note of for disposal of above case. 4. I submit that I have purchased the property from Sri.K.B.Lakshmana and his two sons. The said Sri.K.B.Lakshmana has purchased the above suit property from Smt.K.Shanthamma and others. The original sale deed is not available with the plaintiff. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 sale deed executed by Smt.K.Shanthamma relates to larger property. The plaintiff has purchased portion of larger property. Inspite our best efforts we could not get original sale deed from Sri.K.B.Lakshmana and therefore we applied for certified copy of sale deed dated 04-09-2003 executed by Smt. K.Shanthamma and others in favour of Sri.K.B.Lakshmana and has obtained the same yesterday Le on 30-09-2021. This sale deed relates to the sale of 2 Aces 29 Guntas of land in Sy.No.3 of Halegavaderahalli Village. The suit property is part of said property. The production of above sale deed is necessary for the purpose of fair disposal of above case. I was not able to produce the sale deed at earlier point of time as I did not have original of the same. Under the circumstances the said registered sale deed is necessary to be produced before this Hon'ble Court. I am producing certified copy of sale deed. Under the circumstances the delay in production of said document is bonafide one and unintentional one. Under the circumstances I may be permitted to mark the said documents in the above case on behalf of plaintiff. 5. I submit that if I am not recalled and allow to tender myself for cross-examination the same will result in irreparable loss and injury to plaintiff. By permitting me to tender myself for further cross examination and for further to examination in the above case no harm or injury will occasion to any of the defendants.” (Emphasis added) While it cannot be said that the affidavit so filed by the petitioner did not contain any reason for production of the afore-quoted documents. The reasoning rendered by the concerned Court in the impugned order, which rejects the application has been that there is no relevance brought out, is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30355 WP No. 2863 of 2022 unsustainable and unsustainability would lead to its obliteration. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 02.11.2021, passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, stands quashed. c. The application – I.A.No.17 so filed by the petitioner is allowed. c. The documents, two in numbers is permitted to be placed on record before the concerned Court and the concerned Court shall regularize its procedure thereon. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0