- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7661/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI LOKCHAND GUPTA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. D-008, SAMHITA RAINBOW MTB VIBGYOR SCHOOL ROAD THUBRAHALLI, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARMAL SHIRIN SHABBIRBHAI, ADV.,) AND: 1. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING OFFICE AT, INNOVARE SY NO.63/3B, GORIVIGERE VILLAGE BIDARAHOBLIHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK, WHITEFIELD HOSKOTE ROAD, BENGALURU REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MS. PREETHI PATIL KULKARNI INDIA HR BUSINESS PARTNER SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED INNOVARE, SY NO.63/3B GORVIGERE VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 BIDARAHOBLIHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST EAST TALUK, WHITEFIELD HOSKOTE ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MENTO ISSAC, ADV., FOR SRI. VASUDEVAN H.N. ADV., FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17-02-2023 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THE IA NO.5 AS PER ANNEXURE B, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH NO.59) IN OS NO.2473/2020 & 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 challenging the order dated 17.02.2023 passed on IA.No.5 in O.S No.2473/2020 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-59), (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Smt.Bharmal Shirin Shabbirbhai, learned counsel for Sri.Mento Issac, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vasudevan H.N., learned counsel for the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S No.2473/2020 against the respondents herein seeking a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay the outstanding layoff package amount of Rs.38,97,410/- along with other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments as well as the prayers. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.5 under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking a direction to the defendants to make discovery on oath of the documents referred in the application, claiming to be in their possession and relevant for the adjudication of the suit. The application indicates that the plaintiff is seeking the defendant to produce a true copy of the “One Schneider” policy documents of defendant No.1 containing all the benefits and prerequisites applicable to the laid-off - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 employees in the years 2019 and 2020 and a true copy of the full and final settlement slips along with email notices sent by HR, informing the termination of services of the five employees referred to in the application. The defendants opposed the said application by filing their objections. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the application by accepting the objections of the defendants mainly on the ground that the defendants were not ready to produce the documents sought and that the plaintiff was at liberty to summon any other employee to give evidence and the plaintiff can obtain document and produce as the secondary evidence before the Court. 4. In my considered view, the impugned order of the trial Court is without understanding the scope of Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC. For easy reference, Order XI Rule 12 is extracted herein below: 12. Application for discovery of documents.— Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion, be thought fit: Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.” 5. The aforesaid rule makes it clear that any party to a suit may, without filing an affidavit, apply to the Court for an order or direction against the other party in a suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question thereto, and the Court is required to find out whether these documents sought are necessary for adjudication of the dispute or not. 6. It is required to be noticed that the entire case of the plaintiff is based on a specific assertion that the defendants discriminated against him in the payment of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 the layoff package and the defendants have obtained forceful resignation from the plaintiff. The defendants have filed objections to the said application. Paragraph No.6 of the objections is extracted herein below: “The further allegation that true copy of the One Schneider policy and the documents pertaining the employees settlements are not relevant to this case. The defendants have given better compensation to the plaintiff in comparison to his other team members. The compensation package given to other team members are also as per the application of the defendant No.1 company policy. None of the employees raised any dispute. Its only the plaintiff with a malafide intention filed this frivolous suit and also the present application.” 7. The perusal of the aforesaid objection makes it very clear that the defendants do not deny the existence of the policy sought to be produced by the plaintiff. However, they take a shelter that the packages are paid to the employees considering their experience and depending on the team and that none of the employees have raised any dispute with regard to the same. In my considered view, when the defendants are not denying that there is a - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 policy, though it may not have been named as “One Schneider” policy, but there is a policy of defendant No.1 with regard to the payment of settlement of layoff package, they cannot refuse to place the same before the Court. 8. Another contention raised by the defendant is that the settlement slips and email of the employees referred to in the application cannot be provided as those are the confidential documents. In my considered view, there is no such exception carved out in Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC. Hence, the defendants are bound to produce these documents as sought by the plaintiff. It is needless to observe that if the defendants fail to produce the said documents, the trial Court can draw an appropriate inference. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010174072023 NC: 2026:KHC:38333 W.P. No.7661/2023 ii. The impugned order dated 17.02.2023 passed on IA.No.5 in O.S No.2473/2020 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH- 59), is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.5 filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC is allowed. iii. The defendants shall make available the documents sought in the application before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE VS,ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15