- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21913 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. A. BHASKAR, S/O. MR. APPAJI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 57, 3RD CROSS, M.G. ROAD, NEAR SHANKARA MATA, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH.A., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. T. G. BABU S/O. LATE T. R. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 735, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST F CROSS ROAD, 15TH MAIN ROAD, BASAVESWARANAGARA, 4TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 079. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH R.P, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-67) ON IA NO. 14 IN OS NO. 3206/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE -A BY ALLOWING THIS WP AND ETC., Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 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 the order dated 28.06.2025 by which the application filed by the respondent seeking production of certain documents is allowed. The application was filed under Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 and Order XI Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, directing plaintiff to produce the original document of agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh A., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Manjunath R P., learned counsel for Caveator/respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The respondent-plaintiff is stated to have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner then let out the suit schedule property to the respondent on monthly rental, is the claim of the petitioner. The allegation is that the respondent did not vacate the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 premises and therefore, petitioner filed a suit for ejectment. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or the defense of the respondent as the case would be. 4. The defendant files an application under Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 and Order XI Rule of CPC seeking production of document which is said to be in the possession of the present petitioner as he is the purchaser of the property after entering into an agreement of sale and then executing a sale deed. The concerned court allows the application. The allowing of the application has driven the petitioner-plaintiff to this court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned court has allowed the production of document which is not in his custody at all and therefore, the said order could not have been passed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 6. The learned counsel appearing the respondent takes this court through the examination and cross- examination of the plaintiff to contend that he has admitted that there is a document i.e., agreement of sale that is what is directed to be produced and there is no warrant of inference by this court and the order of the concerned court directing production of such document is absolutely right. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. Narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is allegedly the tenant and the owner of the property. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would dispute the said position contending that he is not the tenant. The issue springs on a sale deed allegedly registered in favour of the present petitioner by the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 9. The respondent - defendant did not leave/vacate the property and therefore, the suit had to be instituted. On the said issue, in the examination and cross-examination, the deposition of the petitioner is as follows: "33. ಾೆ ಾಂಕಃ 16/09/2020 (ಕಾರು ಪತದರುವ ಸೇ ನಂ.IN KA088207932814025) ರ ಕಯದ ಕಾರು ಪತದ ಪಯನು !ೋ#ಸ$ಾ% ಅದರರುವ ಸ' (ಾಗೂ ಾಂಕಃ 27/08/2020 ರ ಕಾರು ಪತದರುವ ಸ' ಎರಡೂ ನನ ,ೆಂದೂ ಾಯು ಒ./ೊಂ0ರು!ಾ1ೆ. 34. ಾ2ಾನ34ಾ% ಕಾರು 2ಾಡುವ ಸಂದಭದ ಮೂಲ ,ಾಖ$ಾಗಳ: ಕಯ,ಾರರ ಬ< ಇರುತ1,ೆ ಎನು ವ>ದು ?ಜ. Aಾ3ಂB?ಂದ (ಾಜರು ಪ0Cರುವ ಾಂಕ: 27/08/2020 ರ ಕಾರು ಪತ ನನ ಬ< ಇತು1 ಎಂದೆ ಸ#ಯಲ. ಸದ# ಕಾರು ಪತವನು ಾನು (ಾಗೂ Dೕ.Aಾಬು ೇ# Aಾ3ಂBೆ ?ೕ0,ೆEೕ4ೆ. Aಾ3ಂB?ಂದ ಾಲವನು ನನ (ೆಸ#ನ 2ಾತ ಪFೆಯ$ಾ%ರುತ1,ೆ. ಾನು ಪFೆದ ಾಲೆG ಪ4ಾಯು HಾIೕನು,ಾರರು, ಾ3ೆಂಟK ಮತು1 ೋ-ಅLೆಂ ಆ% ಸ' 2ಾ0ಲ. ಕಾ#ನ ಪಾರ ಮೂಲ ಕಾರು ಪತ ನನ ಬ< ಇ,ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ,ಾ%ರುತ1,ೆ ಎನು ವ>ದು ?ಜ. ಾಯು ಸNತಃ ಅದು ಪ4ಾಯ ಬ< ಇರುತ1,ೆ ಮತು1 ಅದನು ಅವೇ ತOಾ#Cೊಂಡು ಬಂದEರು, ಾನು ಸ' 2ಾ0ರು!ೆ1ೕೆ ಎಂದು (ೇ<ರು!ಾ1ೆ. 35. ಸದ# ಕಾರು ಪತವನು Oಾರು ತOಾ#Cರು!ಾ1ೆ ಎಂದು ಕಾ#ನ ನಮೂದು ಇ,ೆOಾ ಎನು ವ ಪPೆ ೆ ನನೆ ಓದಲು ಬೆಯಲು ಬರುವ>ಲ. 'ಎಂ◌ಂದು (ೇ<ರು!ಾ1ೆ. ಾಂಕಃ 27/08/2020 ರ ಕಾರು ಪತದ ಮೂಲ ,ಾಖ$ಾ ಮುಖ3 PಾSೆಯ ಇ,ೆ ಎಂದು Aಾ3ಂBನ TUೕದ AN/(ೇ<ರು!ಾ1ೆ ಎನು ವ>ದು ?ಜ. ಾಯು ಸNತಃ ಕರಡು ಪ ಮತು1 ಮೂಲ ಾರು ಪತವನು Aಾ3ಂBೆ ?ೕ0ರು!ೆ1ೕ4ೆ ಎಂದು (ೇ<ರು!ಾ1ೆ. ಾಂಕಃ 27/08/2020 ರ ಕಾರು ಪತದ ಮೂಲ ಪ ನನ ಬ< ಇತು1 ಎನು ವ>ದು. ಸ#ಯಲ. 36. Aಾ3ಂBನವರು ನನ VWೈY ಆZಾರದ Tೕ$ೆ ನನ ಾಲವನು ಮಂಜೂರು 2ಾ0ರು!ಾ1ೆ. ಾನು ಒಂ,ೇ [ಾ\ಾ ಾಗದ ಖ#ೕ 2ಾ0ರು!ೆ1ೕೆ. ಾನು 2ಾಗ0 ೆಂ\ೇೌಡ ೆ0 ೋ-ಆಪೇೕ^ ೊೈ ಎಂದು Aೇೆ Aೇೆ ಮುಖAೆ$ೆಯ 6 [ಾ\ಾ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 ಾಗದಗಳನು ಖ#ೕ 2ಾ0ರು!ೆ1ೕೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ#ಯಲ. ಾಂಕ: 16/09/2020 ರಂದು ಇೊ ಂದು ಕಾರು ಪತ ನನ (ಾಗೂ ಪ4ಾಯ ನಡು4ೆ ಆ%ರುತ1,ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ#ಯಲ. 37. 27/08/2020 ಕಾರು ಪತವನು ರೂ.1,35,00,000/- ೆG 2ಾ0ೊಂ0ರು!ೆ1ೕ4ೆ. ,ಾ4ಾ ಸNತು1 ಹಾ`ೆ ಬಂದ a[ಾರ ನನೆ ೊ1ಲ. Aಾ3ಂBನವರು ,ಾ4ಾ ಸNತ1ನು ಾಂಕಃ 28/08/2020, gÀÆ. 1,58,90,000/- PÉÌ ºÀgÁfUÉ EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ ಎನು ವ a[ಾರ ನನೆ ೊ1ಲ. ಾಂಕಃ 27/08/2020 ರಂದು ಒ!ಾ1ಯ ಪbವಕ4ಾ% ಪ4ಾcಂದ ಕಾರು ಪತವನು 2ಾ0ೊಂ0ರು!ೆ1ೕೆ ಎನು ವ>ದು ಸ#ಯಲ." 10. Owing to the examination and cross- examination of the plaintiff, the respondent-defendant files an application before the concerned court seeking production of a particular document i.e., agreement of sale. The concerned court by the following order allows the application “xxx 3. The plaintiff has resisted the application by filing detailed objection. It is stating the objections that, the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant has come up with this application with sole intention of dragging the proceedings. The plaintiff has filed his rejoinder to the counter claim filed by the Therefore, the application filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff denies his signature in the agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020. He has not admitted the alleged sale agreement as stated by the defendant. The alleged agreement of sale is not in existence. Hence, question of production of the same does not arise. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for defendant and plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 5. The points that would arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the defendant has made out grounds to allow the application and direct the plaintiff to produce the document as sought for? 2) What order? 6. My answer to the above points are as follows: POINT No.1: In the Affirmative, POINT No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. POINT No.1: The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for ejectment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant executed sale deed dated 23.12.2020 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of residential BDA property bearing No.735 consisting of residential building with 10 sq stilt area. 10 sq situated at ground floor, 10 sq frist floor, 10 sq second floor and 5 sq trace floor. The defendant had handed over the vacant possession of the same as per the registered sale deed dated 23.12.2020. On the request of defendant, the defendant has been put in possession in 2nd floor as a tenant by receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- for security deposit and monthly rent of Rs.15.000/- for a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule property. When the case is posted for further cross of PW1. the defendant has come up with this application to direct the plaintiff to produce the document. 8. It is stated in the affidavit that, earlier to execution of agreement of sale dated 23.12.2022, the plaintiff and defendant entered into agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 under which sale consideration was a sum of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff got executed the agreement of sale dated 23.12.2023 by playing fraud and misrepresentation. 9. It is pertinent to note during the cross-examination of PW1, the copy of agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 is confronted to the plaintiff and he has admitted the said document and also admitted his signature in the said - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 document. Thereafter, he has admitted that, generally original document would be in possession of the purchaser. He has also stated that, he along with the defendant has handed over the said document to the bank and loan was obtained by him from the bank. Therefore, it is clear that, the original agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 is in possession of the plaintiff. When plaintiff has specifically admitted the document i.e., agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 which was confronted to him by the defendant, he cannot deny the existence of the said document and now cannot come up with the plea that, he has not executed the said document. The objection filed by the plaintiff, contradicts with his oral evidence wherein he has admitted the document in unequivocal terms. Therefore, the plea taken by the plaintiff in his objection appears to be false. 10. It is to be noted that, plaintiff has alleged fraud and misrepresentation in execution of agreement of sale dated 23.12.2020. It is the contention of the defendant that, prior to the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 under which the sale consideration was Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. Under these circumstances, It appears that, the documents sought to be produced is very much relevant to determine the controversy between the parties and meet the ends of justice. Therefore, this court is opinion that, it is just and proper to direct the plaintiff to produce the said document for completing adjudication of the issues between the parties. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 11. POINT No.2: In view of my above findings I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER I.A.No.14 filed by the defendant under Order XVI Rule 6 & 7 and Order 11 Rule 14 r/w sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code. is hereby allowed. The plaintiff is directed the produce the original agreement of sale dated 16.09.2020 by next date of hearing. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36382 WP No. 21913 of 2025 Further cross of PW1. Call on 07.07.2025.” 11. The concerned court has rendered reasons as to why the document would become necessary owing to the examination and cross-examination of the petitioner. In that light, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, as the order is rendered by giving cogent reasons. Petition is lacking merit and hence, stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK