- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34844 W.P. No.17496/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17496/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. S.V. CONCRETE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 U/S 58(1) HAVING THE OFFICE AT NO.56 III FLOOR, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560102 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. MANJUNATH C. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LIKITH R.P. ADV.,) AND: SMT. DHANAM RAJU GOPALAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S DBC CONSTRUCTION HAVING OFFICE AT NO.11/F1 9TH STREET, VENKATESWARA NAGAR ANNALAKSHMI NAGAR KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU 600041. REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.36 II FLOOR, MAHESHWARAM TEMPLE STREET 1ST CROSS, BEGUR ROAD BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560068. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34844 W.P. No.17496/2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 02.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 85) AT COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO.523/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) “ISSUE A writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH 85) at Commercial Court, Bengaluru in Commercial O.S.No.523/2022 vide Annexure-D; and (ii) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the ends of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.Likith R.P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.S.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the commercial suit in Commercial O.S.No.523/2022 for recovery of money. In the said suit, the respondent-defendant has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34844 W.P. No.17496/2022 filed the written statement. The plaintiff examined one witness as PW1 and thereafter filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief of PW2 and PW3 and along with the said evidence, filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking to produce certain documents through PW2 and PW3. The said application came to be rejected by the Commercial Court on the very same day i.e., on 02.09.2022. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents now sought to be produced by PW2 and PW3 were never in the custody of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is represented by the Recovery Officer and now documents sought to be produced are in the custody of the Sales and Enquiry Officer, which has been clearly stated in para Nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit. However, it is required to be noticed that the Commercial Court has observed that since the plaintiff has failed to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34844 W.P. No.17496/2022 of said documents at the time of presentation of plaint as required under Order XI Rules 1 to 4 of the CPC and rejected I.A.No.4. 5. It is required to be noticed that the Commercial Court has not even taken the application on record and called for objection from the other side and ascertained whether the reasons assigned by the plaintiff in the affidavit accompanying the applications are sufficient reasonable cause, relevancy of those documents and whether those documents were in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiff and in the absence of any such reasons, I am of the considered view that the application filed by the plaintiff is required to be reconsidered by the Commercial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.4 in Commercial O.S.No.523/2022 by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34844 W.P. No.17496/2022 the LXXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.4 is restored on the file of the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court shall consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is open for the respondents to file objections to the said application. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38