- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20995 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI RAJENDRAN S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO. 73, IV CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIHARI R DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S BALAJI AGARBHATI COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KAGGALIPURA COLONY, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, 1. SRI. P.R BALAJI 2 SRI. P.R. BHASKAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B S.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS.NO.2313/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE CCH-36, QUASH THE ORDER DTD 30/08/2023 PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE ON IA NO. 15 AT BANGALORE CCH-36 VIDE ANNEXURE-E THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the concerned court in rejecting an application filed by the petitioner - the tenant on I.A.No.15, seeking to divulge the names of the partners, in the partnership firm, which had let out the property to the petitioner. 2. Heard Shri Nagaraj Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Arjun C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is a tenant. He is said to have come into possession, in subject premises as a tenant on an agreement with the erstwhile partnership firm M/s. Balaji Agarbathi Company, represented by three partners. The suit is instituted by the three partners in O.S.No.2313/2012 seeking eviction of the present petitioner - the tenant, who was put in possession in the year 1999. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into an agreement with the father of the present respondents and the lease was for a period of 30years, though no document is subsisting to that effect. The suit is of the year 2012 and at the time when the suit was at the stage of its conclusion, the petitioner files an application under Order XXX Rule 3 of the CPC seeking divulgence of the names of the partners of the firm, on the score that he had entered into an agreement of lease with the particular partner, which was for a period of 30years, and therefore he is entitled to remain for upto 2029, as a tenant. 5. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or the defence of the respondent. The petitioner files an application as observed hereinabove under Order XXX Rule 3 of the CPC to divulge the details of the partners of the partnership firm. The concerned court, by the impugned order, rejects the application. The reasons rendered to reject the application is as follows: "7. The plaintiff filed this suit for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule premises claiming that the defendant is the tenant. The plaintiff also produced the lease agreement executed by defendant in favour of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 plaintiff M/s.Balaji Agarbathi as per Ex.P.1. Now, the defendant filed the application to direct the plaintiff to produce the partnership deed dated 31-3-2018 as well as to disclose the name of the partners of plaintiff. In the case on hand, the plaintiff also examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P.33. The suit is filed by the plaintiff as such, it is for the plaintiff to produce what are the documents required in support of the plaint case as well as what are the information required to be furnished to the Court in support of the plaint case is solely lies on the plaintiff and not on the request of defendant. The Court cannot issue direction merely because the defendant filed the application for issuance of directions. If at all the plaintiff fails to produce the material document to the Court and if such documents has been withhold by the plaintiff from producing to the Court as well as necessary particulars in the plaint is not deliberately furnished, certainly, the Court can draw adverse inference on the plaint case. Apart from that, the defendant is not claiming any right over the plaintiff Company or exclusive right over the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, certainly, the plaintiff cannot be directed to produce the documents to the Court or other particulars as claimed in the I.A. This Court is the humble opinion that the defendant has failed to make out sufficient grounds to direct the plaintiff to produce the document and particulars stated in the I.A.14 & 15. Accordingly, the above point is answered in the negative. In the result, the following:- ORDERS IA No.14 filed by defendant under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC is hereby dismissed. I.A.No.15 filed by the defendant under Order 30 Rule 2(1) of CPC is hereby dismissed. For defence evidence by 23-09-2023. Placing of reliance on Order XXX Rule 3, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is on the face of it misplaced, as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 petitioner is a tenant and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants qua the partnership of a partnership firm. The suit is for eviction of the tenant, who was put in the premises, as a tenant and not as a partner. Therefore, the order of the concerned court, which rejects the application does not warrant any interference, as it is neither perverse nor erroneous. 6. In the light of the fact that there is already an order passed by the co-ordinate bench way back in the year 2023 to conclude the suit within six months, not six months, but twenty four months have passed by and the suit is still languishing only on the score that subject petition is pending and an interim order is granted. 7. The suit is of the year 2012 and still languishing before the concerned court for the last 13 years and the suit is one for eviction. Therefore, in the light of the suit pending for 13 years, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings. The concerned court shall endeavour to conclude the suit, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32268 WP No. 20995 of 2023 8. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51