- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.721/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE GURUMALLAPPA AGED 82 YEARS R/AT OPP GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 570028. 2. SRI. G. MANJUNATH S/O LATE GURUMALLAPPA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT OPP GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBIL, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DIST 570028. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI, ADV., FOR SRI. K.S. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. T.R. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE C. RANGAPPA AGED 47 YEARS R/AT NO.155, 2ND D CROSS 5TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE NAGARBHAVAI BENGALURU 560072. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 2. SMT. SALMA PARVEEN KHANAM W/O MOHAMMED ZAFARULLA KHAN AGED 50 YEARS R/AT NO.320, 6TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR MANDYA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT 571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM PHADKE, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.917/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU. QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R1 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THEREBY PERMITTING HIM TO PRODUCE THE ALLEGED ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN O.S.NO 917/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - H TO THE WP & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “(a) Call for the records in O.S.No.917/2018 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru. (b) Issue of a writ of certiorari or order or direction, in the nature of writ, quashing/set aside the order dated 29.09.2022 in allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby permitting him to produce the alleged original documents in O.S.No.917/2018 passed by the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition; (c) Pass such other orders, as the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Smt.Vaibhavi, learned counsel for Sri.K.S.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vikram Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.917/2018 for specific performance. In the said - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 suit, petitioners have been arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2; they have filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'the CPC') seeking leave of the Court to produce the original agreement of sale, which was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance without producing the agreement is not maintainable and no grounds are stated in the affidavit. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the application. 4. No doubt, the affidavit accompanying the application for production of document i.e. original agreement of sale, is not worded rightly by assigning detailed reasons. However, the plaintiff has stated that the original document is in his custody. Taking note of the relief sought in the suit which is for the relief of specific performance and in the absence of agreement of sale, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 suit cannot be proceeded further. In my considered view, the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application on cost. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the affidavit accompanying the application does not assign any reasons is required to be rejected as the respondent-plaintiff has stated that the original document was in his custody, but he could not produce the same before Court. Taking note of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application and considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned order, I am of the view that the order of the trial Court does not call for any interference. However, for non-production of the agreement of sale at the time of filing of the suit and production of the same at a later stage is required to be allowed by imposing cost of ₹5,000/- instead of ₹1,000/- on the plaintiff to be payable to the defendants. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010016722023 NC: 2026:KHC:45558 W.P. No.721/2023 6. Hence, the impugned order of the trial Court is modified and the application filed by the plaintiff is allowed on payment of cost of ₹5,000/- which is to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32