- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 21958 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CANARA BANK BUILDING 112, J. C. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G. SRINIVASAN S/O. SRI V. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.1018, 6TH CROSS II BLOCK, I STAGE BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560050. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 ON I.A. FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER SEEKING PERMISSION OF THE COURT TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT IN O.S.NO.17060/2006 PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-21) AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 2. Parties to the petition shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs: "a. call for the records on the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 21) at Bengaluru. b. issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.07.2025 on IA filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner seeking permission of the Court to produce the document in O.S.No.17060/2006, passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 21) at Bengaluru as per Annexure-A. c. issue a writ of mandamus directing the learned Trial Court to consider production of the original - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 approved layout plan sanctioned by BDA on 14.09.1978 as document. d. grant such other relief or relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 4. The suit came to be filed in the year 2006 by the plaintiff for declaration and other consequential benefits against the defendant. However, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for permission to produce the document namely, approved layout plan sanctioned by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, 'BDA'), which was seriously objected to by the learned counsel for respondent-defendant. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application. The said application is filed in the year 2025 at the stage when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW.1. 5. However, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff, who is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 the dominus litis, ought to have produced the document, which was in his custody at the earliest point of time itself, if the same was not produced along with the plaint. The trial Court has also held that nothing prevented the plaintiff from producing the document which was in his custody or obtaining it from the necessary Authority by filing an application prior to evidence or even thereafter, within a reasonable time. It is also held that the genuineness of the very document is questioned by the defendant and the same is illegible. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out good ground for production of the photostat copy of the document, as he has not made any ground for leading secondary evidence. 6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse, illegal and arbitrary, as the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the original document is with the BDA. The plaintiff shall produced the same by obtaining the legible copy. The trial Court has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 also committed an error by recording the reason that the plaintiff is protracting and dragging on the proceedings for one reason or the other. However, the trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to produce the original approved plan dated 14.09.1978, which is necessary as the entire case revolves around the above approved layout plan, without which, the plaintiff may not be able to establish his case before the trial Court. 7. It is further contended that the order passed by the trial Court is devoid of merits. The trial Court has gone further to give finding that the said document cannot be marked in evidence. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- defendant sustains the impugned order and contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 9. On a careful perusal of the impugned order and submissions placed by learned counsels for parties, apparently, it is seen that the application has been filed by the plaintiff for production of a document, i.e., the original approved layout plan sanctioned by BDA, but a copy of which is annexed to the application is illegible. When such being the case, the trial Court could have asked the plaintiff to produce the original document. 10. The trial Court has held that the application filed by the plaintiff to produce the additional document is not sustainable, as it cannot be marked as an exhibit in the evidence at this stage. Therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that when the document cannot be marked in evidence, such document cannot be produced and there is no necessity for the same. I am afraid that the trial Court has committed an error in going one step forward with regard to marking or admissibility of the document. The application for production of the document cannot be disallowed by the Court; certainly the Court can - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 have an objection with regard to marking of the document. However, under the circumstances, when the document is sought to be produced, it is required to be accepted by the Court. Later, the admissibility of the document can be considered by the trial Court as to whether it is an admissible evidence or any other order requires to be passed if the plaintiff seeks to mark the same as evidence or otherwise if the Court comes to a conclusion on any other provision as per law. 11. During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff submits that he would produce the original layout plan, as the photocopy produced not legible. However, the copy of the document produced by the plaintiff cannot be rejected on the ground that it may not be admissible to be marked as an exhibit in evidence, which is a later part of the procedural aspect. 12. Under the circumstance, the application filed by the plaintiff requires to be allowed and it is for the trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 Court to decide as to whether the document is required to be considered or not on the basis of its legibility, subsequently, whether it is required to be allowed or to be marked in the evidence or not at the instance of the plaintiff or to be rejected at the instance of the defendant. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed on the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.17060/2006 by IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the said application is allowed and the document shall be taken on record; iii. It is open for the Court either to accept the document or reject it if the plaintiff relies upon it in evidence, both on the basis of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46835 WP No. 21958 of 2025 legibility or admissibility of the document. If the plaintiff is inclined to produce the original approved layout plan sanctioned by BDA, as submitted by him during the course of arguments, he is permitted to do so and the same shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law; iv. In view of the fact that the original suit is of the year 2006, which is almost two decades from the date of filing of the suit, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within an outer limit of six months; v. The trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either parties for unnecessary adjournments. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17