- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23118 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SATISH BHAT AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE GANAPATI BHAT, R/AT MANADU HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574238 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALORE-575001 2. ADARSH VIVIDHODHODHESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, PUTTUR, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE: DARBE, PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT-574202 CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 3. SHARATH KUMAR AGED: MAJOR S/O GOPAL RAO R/AT TIMMADKA HOUSE BILINELLE VILLAGE AND POST KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574238 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 4. DINESH B.N S/O NARAYANA AGE: MAJOR R/AT NIDHIKETANA HOUSE, SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574238 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2025 ON IA NO.1 IN DISPUTE NO.JRM/DDS/1106/2023-24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, DYRCS, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Dispute No.JRM/DDS/1106/2023-24 on I.A.No.1 by the respondent No.1, by which, I.A.No.1 filed by him to summon certain documents from the respondent No.2 was rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 2. (i) It appears that the respondent No.2 initiated proceedings before the respondent No.1 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1959' for short) for recovery of a sum of Rs.56,15,786/- with future interest. The respondent No.2 claimed that the petitioner had availed loan of Rs.40,00,000/- and had agreed to repay the same with 15% interest per annum for which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors. (ii) The dispute before the respondent No.1 was opposed by the petitioner herein. Consequently, the case was taken up for trial. The respondent No.2 examined one of the witnesses in support of his case as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, a suggestion was put to the witness as to whether he could produce documents to show that the petitioner had opened a loan account and that the sanctioned loan was credited to his account, the witness deposed that the said documents could be produced. Consequent thereto the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of Civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 Procedure Code to direct the respondent No.2 to produce documents in that regard. The said application was opposed by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 passed a one- line cryptic order, rejecting the application of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 had rejected the application without mentioning any reason. He submits that PW.1 categorically admitted in his deposition that there are documents to show that the account was opened by the petitioner and that the loan amount sanctioned was credited into his account. He therefore contends that respondent No.2 would not suffer any hardship, if documents are summoned from the custody of the respondent No.2. He submits that the respondent No.1 without considering the fact that these documents were crucial for consideration of the dispute raised by the respondent No.2, rejected the application by a one-line order. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent No.1 be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 directed to consider the application on merits and pass a speaking order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that it is for the respondent No.2 to establish the loan transaction and that the loan amount was credited into the account of petitioner. He therefore submits that the petitioner need not summon the documents from the respondent No.2. Thus, he contends that the application filed by the petitioner was only to delay and drag on the proceedings and the respondent No.1 being satisfied about the same, rightly passed the impugned order. 6. The respondent No.1 is the adjudicating authority to decide whether the respondent No.2 had advanced loan to the petitioner. If that be so, when the witness for the respondent No.2 had deposed that there were documents to show that loan was sanctioned and credited to the account of petitioner, the latter was justified in filing an application to direct the respondent No.2 to summon the documents. It was upto the respondent No.1 to decide whether those documents were really necessary for the purpose of deciding the dispute raised - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33483 WP No. 23118 of 2025 by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 was bound to pass a speaking order. Since, the impugned order does not indicate any reasons, the same deserves to be set aside. 7. Consequently the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. (ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55