- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2 WP No. 5929 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 5929 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.LOKANATH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI. KRISHNAN NAIDU, RESIDING AT NO.40/46, SRI. RAMA MANDIR ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.MALAR RAJA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MAYANDI THAVAR, 2. MRS.P.SIVARATHRY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI. MALAR RAJA, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.D.27/2, D.R.D.O. TOWNSHIP PHASE-II, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093. 3. MRS.NOORJAHAN BEGUM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI M.A.AZEEZ, R/AT NO.18-18/71, RAJARAM STREET, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522 001. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2 WP No. 5929 of 2021 4. C.P.SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI.COIL PILLAI, R/AT NO.718, IMMANUEAL HOUSE, EX-SERVICE MAN COLONY, DODDA BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (R4-SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 04.02.2021 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED IN OS NO.25470/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-29) AND FURTHER ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO RETURN EX.P15 SALE DEED DTD 22.06.1988 IN THE SUIT TO THE CUSTODY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order XIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) has been dismissed. The learned Trial Court has held that under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2 WP No. 5929 of 2021 Order XIII Rule 9 CPC, only the person who has produced the document is entitled to receive it back and since Exhibit P15 was produced by the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant No.2 would be entitled to receive the document and not the applicant respondent/plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that although the provisions of Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC, provide for return to the party who has filed, the respondent/plaintiff can ask for the return of such documents. 3. The submission of learned counsel is without any merit. A plain reading of the provision sets out the applicability of the provision. It sets out that any person who has filed a document can receive it back in certain circumstances. Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC is set out below: “9. Return of admitted documents.—(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any documents produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same— (a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and (b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of: 1 [Provided that a document may be returned at any time - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2 WP No. 5929 of 2021 earlier then that prescribed by this rule if the person applying there for— (a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original,— (i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and (ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of Order VII, and (b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so:] Provided also that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. (2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given by the person receiving it.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. The application under Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC sets out that the Exhibit P15 be returned to the petitioner/defendant No.2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 that Ex.P-15 had been placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff. In these circumstances the question of return to the petitioner/defendant No.2 would not arise. 5. The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has held that the documents not filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 cannot be returned to the petitioner/defendant No.2 and has dismissed the application. Given the provision invoked by the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any infirmity with the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2 WP No. 5929 of 2021 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA