- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108455 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. RAVINDRA S/O GANAPATI REVANKAR, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/S SAI COMPLEX, DURGAD BAIL, HUBLI, HUBBALLI-580 020. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. MODERN INDIA LIMITED, ALSO KNOWN AS THE MODERN MILLS LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIA COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT COMPANY MODERN CENTRE, SANE GURUJI MARG, MAHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI-400 011, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SHRI VIJAYKUMAR S/O MAHAVEERPRASAD JATIA, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. MODERN INDIA LIMITED, MODERN CENTRE, SANE GURUJI MARG, MAHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI-400 011. 3. M/S. SANJAY BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #8, II FLOOR, KATARIA TRADE CENTRE, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBLI-HUBBALLI, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRI MANGILAL S/O HARAKCHANDJI JAIN, AGE ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #8, II FLOOR, KATARIA TRADE CENTRE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:56 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBLI-HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-580 020. 4. SHRI VIJAY S/O MANGILAL JAIN, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS-PARTNER, M/S SANJAY BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, R/O. #8, II FLOOR, KATARIA TRADE CENTRE, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBLI-HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-580 020. 5. SHRI. MANJUNATH BHAT, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE AND GPA HOLDER OF RESPONDENT NO.1 COMPANY, R/O. PLOT NO12, “SHREEGURU” AKSH PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI-HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-580 023. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANAPATI HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDER, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20-08-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.83 BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN O.S. NO.156/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-G AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI TO FURNISH THE PETITIONER HEREIN/PLAINTIFF THE ENTIRE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS HELD AS AGAINST THE SAID CMO AND BENCH CLERK OF THE SAID TRIAL COURT IN RESPECT OF THE STOLEN DOCUMENTS DATED 03-08-2010 AND 01-05-2012 WHICH WERE KEPT IN SAFE CUSTODY OF THE SAID COURT ORDER VIDE VDR NO.15/14 (1) AND VDR 15/14(2) RESPECTIVELY AS SOUGHT IN THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.83 IN THE SAID SUIT, BY ALLOWING THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.3/respondent No.3. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 20.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.83 in O.S.No.156/2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi1. 3. The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, read with Rule 230 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 19673. 4. The suit for specific performance is still pending before the Trial Court since 2014. 1 For short, the ‘Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘Code’ 3 For short, ‘1967 Rules’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 5. In terms of the order passed by the Court, the documents were to be kept in a sealed cover. It is an admitted fact that the agreements for sale, which were ordered to be kept in a sealed cover on which the plaintiff relies, have been misplaced and lost from the custody of the Court. Thereafter, an internal enquiry was conducted by the Court, and the report is now before the Trial Court. 6. The plaintiff has filed an application to disclose the outcome of the said enquiry, and objection is not filed by the defendants to the said application. 7. The Trial Court has held that the application is not maintainable, as the report has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It is further observed that the report is a confidential administrative record and therefore cannot be the part of the judicial proceedings. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner would submit that the report may throw light, as to who is responsible for the loss of documents. Thus, would urge that the Trial Court should make the report available. In case there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 is an indication that the defendants are also involved in act resulting in inquiry for the loss of documents, then necessary consequences should follow in the suit. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the enquiry was held on the administrative side, and therefore report cannot be treated as relevant piece of evidence in a suit for specific performance. The documents which are said to have been lost have already been reconstructed and placed before the Court for examination, and the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous order. 10. Learned Senior Counsel in addition to that would also refer to Rule 230 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. The said Rule reads as under: “Rule 230. Application by a party:- A party to a suit or proceeding is entitled, at any stage of the proceeding, to obtain copies of the record of the suit or proceeding, including documents which have been admitted in evidence. Irrespective of whether the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 documents so admitted in evidence are originals or certified copies.” 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 12. There is no dispute that the two documents on which the suit is based are missing from the custody of the Court, and an enquiry in this regard has been conducted and completed. However, the report has not yet made available to the parties to the proceeding. 13. The question is whether the report would be relevant to the case in a suit for specific performance of contract; Whether the report would be relevant or not depends on the finding in the report; 14. If there is a finding in the report that either of the parties is responsible for loss of records, then that finding may have some bearing in a suit for specific performance, where the Court is also required to look into the conduct of the parties, as the relief of specific performance is discretionary. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 Otherwise, the report may not be having much of bearing in the suit for specific performance. 15. The report is not made available. Whether the report would be necessary for adjudication of the case or not can be decided, only after the report is made available to the parties to the proceedings. 16. Though the learned Senior Counsel is right in submitting that Rule 230 of the Rules 1967, has no application to the facts of the case, the Court is of the view that application can be considered under Section 151 of the Code of Procedure, 1908, which is also one of the provisions invoked. 17. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed in part. b) The order dated 20.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.83 in O.S.No.156/2014 by the I - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, is set aside. c) The report of enquiry shall be made available in the records of the Court. d) If there is any indication in the report that either of the parties to the proceeding is responsible for the loss of the documents, then that part of the report may be looked into and admitted in evidence, and thereafter, same shall be considered along with the merits of the case. e) Unnecessary applications, if filed to prolong, the matter shall be viewed seriously by the Trial Court by imposing costs on the party, who has filed applications to delay the proceedings. f) It is needless to say that earlier this Court dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.No.102856/2025 has directed that the suit has to be decided within - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15687 WP No. 108455 of 2025 one year from that date. Since the deadline imposed by the Court is coming to an end, both the parties shall cooperate for early disposal. g) If the parties to the suit apply for the copy of the enquiry report, same shall be given to the parties. However, it shall not be used by the parties for any other purpose other than the present suit, if it is relevant, as observed supra. h) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29