- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39503 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI AKKAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. R. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K. MADESHA, S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT KALKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 016 2. SMT. R. LALITHA W/O S.N. RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.95/1, “NAKA”, 5TH CROSS, KRUSHI NAGAR, SHIMOGGA. 3. SRI. R. SHAMEER AHMED S/O V. S. RAMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9/B, TYPE II BLOCK, 7, NEYVELI, TAMIL NADU – 607 803 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 4. SRI.MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O A. MOHAMMED UMMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15, KU-ESHWARAN KOIL STREET, VALAWAMUR POST, VILLUPURAM DISTICT, TAMIL NADU – 605 108 5. SRI. P. SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.265, OLD BYAPPANAHALLI, MOTAPPA LANE, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 033 6. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKA BYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT MARUGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, T.C.PALYA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DUSTRUCT AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO. 663/2017, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.663/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed on I.A. No.12 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for a direction to the respondents-defendants to produce the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 09.07.2004 was rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under: “DW1 present with counsel. Plaintiff counsel files application U/o.11 Rule 14 of CP which is numbered as IA No.12. Counsel for defendant prays time. Called out again. Plaintiff counsel and Counsel for defendant present with DW1. Counsel for Plaintiff and defendant prays time. Plaintiff counsel has filed the IA No.12. Perused. The learned counsel for Plaintiff submits that, the defendant No.1 has relied on GPA, but he has not produced. Plaintiff has not executed said GPA and he has filed police compliant in this regard. Hence, production of GPA is necessary. Counsel for defendant submits that, the Plaintiff himself is the consenting witness to Ex D4 and the Plaintiff has admitted about GPA. Hence, production is not necessary. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 Having heard so, since it is for cross of DW1, objection is dispensed. The Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration. It is stated in the affidavit that, the defendant has relied or alleged GPA. Hence, he supposed to have custody of GPA and ought to have produced. But. DW1 has not produced said document which is fabricated. Hence, the production of said document is material. The production or non-production of documents by the parties to the suit is governed by the legal principles. The language used in Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC does not contemplate the right of the party to apply and seek documents. It is the discretion of the court. In view of the legal principles, the IA No.12 is devoid of merit. Hence, IA No.12 is rejected. For cross of DW1 by 06.01.2026.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs, in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence, subsequent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 to which the respondents-defendants adduced oral evidence of DW-1, at which stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application for a direction to the respondents to produce the aforesaid GPA dated 09.07.2004. The respondents-defendants opposed the said application, inter alia contending that they do not have custody or possession of the alleged GPA and the question of directing them to produce the same would not arise. Under these circumstances the Trial Court proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims in relation to the alleged GPA dated 09.07.2004, having regard to the specific stand/stands of the respondents-defendants that they do not have custody or possession of the alleged GPA dated 09.07.2004, the Trial Court was completely justified in dismissing the application I.A.No.12 filed by the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner would be entitled to take up all contentions including requesting the Trial Court to draw inference/adverse inference against/for the respondents- defendants for non-production of the alleged GPA dated 09.07.2004 and all rival contentions in this regard would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3148 WP No. 39503 of 2025 necessarily have to be kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. 5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to put forth all contentions as regards inference/adverse inference against/for the respondents-defendants for non production of the alleged GPA dated 09.07.2004, which shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28