- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 2165 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S GREAVES COTTON LIMITED, 5TH FLOOR, PRESS TRUST OF INDIA BLDG., 16/7, MILLER TANK BAND AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, NEAR JAIN HOSPITAL, BENGALURU-560052. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. VIJAY CHHATTANI, S/O LATE DR. T. N. CHATTANI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH H. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S GREEN TECH AGRO SOLUTIONS, D-3/7773/1032, 11TH CROSS ROAD, KALLAHALLY, VISVESWARANAGAR, MANDYA-571401. KARNATAKA INCORPORATE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, AND / OR 1032, 11TH CROSS ROAD, V. V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI, OPP. K S R T C BUS STAND, CHIKKABALLAPUR, MANDYA, KARNATAKA. REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 2. MS. L. S. CHANDRAKALA, NARAYANA VILLA No.26, 16TH CROSS ROAD, 4TH TEMPLE STREET, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. 3. MS. VANITA, HOUSE No.18, 3RD MAIN, GANDHINAGAR EXTENSION, GANGENAHALLI WARD No.34 BANGALORE-560032. 4. K. S. SHOBA No.685, 3RD CROSS, E BLOCK, 11TH MAIN, J. P. NAGAR, MYSURU-8, KARNATAKA-570008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.R. RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI L. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. E.R. PANKAJA MANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2022 PASSED IN COM.OS No.6194/2018 BY THE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT BENGALURU, ON APPLICATION I.A No.9 AND 10 FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1,2,3 R/W SECTION 151 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A No.9 AND 10. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri H.V. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri S.R. Raviprakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2; Sri L. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3; and Smt. E.R. Pankaja Mani, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 2. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Com.O.S. No.6194/2018 on the file of the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Commercial Court on I.A. Nos.9 and 10 filed under Order XVI Rules 1 to 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 3. The plaintiff filed a commercial suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,30,047/- with interest at 24% per annum. Defendant No.1 is pleaded as a partnership firm and defendant Nos.2 to 4 as its partners. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed their written statement denying that they are partners of defendant No.1 firm. The Trial Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 framed issues and the plaintiff has adduced its evidence. At that stage, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XVI Rules 1 to 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC. I.A. No.9 was filed seeking summons to secure account details, account opening form, identity and address proofs, and transaction details of defendant No.1. I.A. No.10 was filed seeking summons to produce records available with the Auditor and Tax Practitioner pertaining to defendant No.1. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected both applications holding that the documents are to be produced by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has to establish its case on the basis of its own documents. 4. Sri H.V. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that defendant No.1 is a dealer and that the plaintiff had supplied goods to it. The unpaid consideration for such supply is the subject matter of the suit. It is further submitted that defendant No.1 is represented through defendant Nos.2 to 4. In view of the categorical stand taken by defendant Nos.2 to 4 that they are not partners of defendant No.1, the documents sought under I.A. Nos.9 and 10 are relevant for adjudication of the dispute. Learned counsel contends that the Trial Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 without appreciating the fact that the documents are neither in the custody of the plaintiff nor available from any other source, has erroneously rejected the applications. 5. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, issuance of notice to defendant No.1 is dispensed with, as defendant No.1 was placed ex parte before the Trial Court. 6. Smt. E.R. Pankaja Mani, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that the documents sought to be summoned are already on record. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. Learned counsel further contends that since the reliefs sought in the applications as well as in the present petition are directed against defendant No.1/respondent No.1, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief after dispensing with notice to respondent No.1. Learned counsel, however, reiterates the stand that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not partners of defendant No.1. 7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the writ petition papers. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 8. The petitioner has filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of money arising out of the supply of goods to defendant No.1. The relief appears to be directed mainly against defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their capacity as partners of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have denied their partnership with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, though served, has remained absent before the Trial Court and was placed ex parte. Under I.A. No.9, the petitioner sought production of banking and other details of defendant No.1. In such circumstances, when defendant Nos.2 to 4 deny their partnership with defendant No.1, their objections to the said application are unsustainable. 9. The issue for consideration, apart from the existence of an enforceable liability, is with regard to the status of defendant No.1, whether as a partnership or otherwise. The petitioner was supplying goods to defendant No.1 under invoices raised in its name, and certain payments were made by defendant No.1 towards those invoices. It is the case of the petitioner that while the invoices and debit entries in its accounts have been produced, the same are not sufficient to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 establish the status of defendant No.1. Such status can be ascertained from the banking records and the details of the persons representing defendant No.1. The particulars sought in I.A. No.9 are, therefore, relevant to determine the status of defendant No.1. In view of the categorical denial by defendant Nos.2 to 4 of their partnership with defendant No.1, issuance of such direction would not in any manner prejudice their rights. 10. I.A. No.10 has been filed seeking production of records of defendant No.1 from the Auditor and Tax Practitioner. However, there is no material on record to establish that the person named in the application is, in fact, the Auditor or Tax Practitioner of defendant No.1, or that the said records are available with such person. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer in I.A. No.10 is not sustainable. Nevertheless, this Court is inclined to allow I.A. No.9. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the following: Order i) The writ petition is allowed in-part. ii) The order dated 11.02.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 in Com.O.S.No.6194/2018 on the file of the LXXXV - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33931 WP No. 2165 of 2023 Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.9 filed under Order XVI Rule 1, 2 and 3 r/w section 151 of CPC, is hereby allowed. iv) The Trial Court is hereby directed to issue necessary summons to State Bank of India, Mandya Branch, for production of documents as listed in I.A.No.9. v) In view of the above discussion, order rejecting I.A.No.10 is not interfered. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36