- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5710 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MIHIR KANTI MISHRA …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR M/S SUNDARSWAMY & RAMDAS) AND: 1. C. RAJANNA S/O SRI.CHIKKAMUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1 JANATHA COLONY ROAD 1ST STREET, DOMMASANDRA SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 125. 2. SRI.KRISHNA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT 1997 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.16, GIRLS SCHOOL ROAD DODDAMAVALLI Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 BENGALURU-560 004, REP. HEREIN BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.J.ALVA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COMM.O.S.NO.8225/2012 ON THE FILE OF LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.25.2.2020 IN O.S.8225/12 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.IV ANNEXURE-E AND 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 25.02.2020 passed in Comm. O.S.No.8225/2012 by LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-84) (for short 'the Trial Court') 2. Sri.S.R.Kamalacharana., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for recovery of money against respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking for production of document from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 respondent No.2-Bank, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioners’ claims before the trial Court are specific that respondents No.1 and 2 colluded with each other and caused loss to the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 being the employee of the petitioner-Company, during the course of operations created some documents and ensured that a double payment is made to the vendors. However, insofar as the second payment to the vendor is concerned, he has created fake accounts with the respondent No.2- Bank and withdrew the money for himself. In view of the specific assertion in the plaint, the petitioner intends to prove before the trial Court as to whether the respondent No.2-Bank has followed the required norms while opening account, operating account and releasing the amount in favour of respondent No.1. However, the trial Court rejected the application for production of documents solely on the ground that the respondent No.2-Bank has taken stand that they do not possess the original documents, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 and they have handed over the same to the Investigation Officer in Crime No.92/2012. It is also submitted that the trial Court has failed to apply its mind with regard to the purpose of the documents sought and failed to understand the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, resulting in rejection of the application. It is contended that the Jurisdictional Police in response to the orders of the trial Court filed a communication dated 17.11.2020 which is produced at Annexure-J to the petition. The said document clearly indicates that on verification the Police Station as well as the Jurisdictional Court have answered stating that the documents sought in IA No.IV are not available with them and in view of the said stand of the police, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basanagouda vs. S.B.Amarkhed and Ors., in MANU/SC/0495/992 and seeks to allow the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 3. Per contra, Sri.M.J.Alva., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Bank supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has categorically recorded the reason that respondent No.2-Bank does not possess the original documents. It is submitted that the objections filed by respondent No.2 itself make it clear that the original documents sought by the petitioner are handed over to the Jurisdictional Police for the purpose of investigation, which is evident from the affidavits filed by Executive Director of the respondent No.2-Bank. It is further submitted that the affidavit is enclosed with a notice dated 18.09.2012 sent by the Police to the Bank directing them to produce certain documents referred to in the notice. In reply to the same notice, Bank has sent documents sought as per Annexure-R3 along with the communication dated 18.03.2013 and for having sent the documents the postal acknowledgment is also produced. It is also submitted that when respondent No.2 does not possess the original - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 documents, the question of insisting respondent No.2 to produce the document would not arise. Lastly, it is contend that the document at Annexure-J sent by the police is after the impugned order was passed and that too it is sent by some Police Officer, who was not the Investigation Officer, in-charge of collecting the papers from the Bank. Hence, no credibility can be given to such a document. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the above petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Bank and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record indicates that the petitioner has filed Comm.O.S.No.8225/2012 for a judgment and decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,97,006/- along with interest at the rate of 24% against the respondents herein. It is the specific case of the petitioner before the trial Court that the respondent No.1, who was the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 employee of the petitioner, defrauded the petitioner and ensured the payment of amounts to the vendors on two occasions. In effect, respondent No.1 has systematically committed fraud by creating fake accounts in the name of vendors with respondent No.2-Bank and ensured the withdrawal of the same amount for himself. 6. It is to be noticed that respondent No.2-Bank has contested in the proceedings, the issues were framed and the petitioner produced the evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking a direction to the respondent No.2-Bank to produce the originals of the documents referred to in the application. The said application is accompanied with an affidavit of the Deputy General Manager of the petitioner-Company. The affidavit indicates the stand of the petitioner in the suit and the necessity of those documents for the litigation of the suit. The said application was opposed by respondent No.2 by filing detailed statement of objections. The respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 No.2-Bank has specifically taken a stand before the trial Court that the documents sought to be produced have been handed over to the police during the course of investigation. The Trial Court, while considering the said objections, recorded a finding that respondent No.2-Bank does not possess the documents and the application was rejected. 7. The mere perusal of the Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC indicates that it is a discretionary power vested upon the Courts to be used upon satisfaction that the document sought to be produced is necessary to decide the lis between the parties in the suit. Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC empowers the Court to order for production of documents from any party thereto from their custody or control, which is relevant to the case on hand. It is also trite law that the Trial Court must ascertain as to whether the document sought by another party is in possession or power of the opposing party and whether those documents are relating to any matter in question in such a suit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 However, a mere assertion by the opposing party from whom such a document is sought that they are not in possession of such documents cannot be used as a blanket defense to evade such production. 8. Furthermore, it is observed that the respondent No.2-Bank from whom the documents are sought to be produced is a bank and is a regulated body under the appropriate statute. It is further observed that the nature of the documents sought to be produced pertains to the opening and operations of the bank account, in the very same bank. The details of the documents sought in the application are extracted below: 1. Account Opening Forms duly filled up by the account holders of; 2. Documents submitted by the account holders of; 3. KYC forms obtained by Defendant No.2 from account holders of 4. PAN Card details or Form No.60 produced under the Income Tax Rules by the account holders of; 5. Documents demanded by Defendant No.2 as part of scrutiny from the account holders of; 6. Statement of Accounts of; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 7. Register indicating the present status of; Sl.No Name of Bank Accounts 1. Sree Manjunatha Electricals 2. Sree Manjunatha Enterprises 3. Hamsa Constructions 4. S.S.Enterprises 5. Swamy Constructions 6. Vasuki Power System 7. Subramniam & Co 8. Green Belt 9. V. Vishwanath 10. Lakshmi Construction 11. PYN Precision Components 12. K.S.Manpower Engineering Services 13. Camtek Services 14. Gandhi International 15. Creative Engineering Services 9. The perusal of the aforesaid documents sought above makes it clear that the nature of the documents is fundamental to the opening and operating the bank - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 accounts. It is also observed that the existence of such bank accounts is not disputed by respondent No.2. Hence, the respondent No.2-Bank cannot make a mere statement that the aforesaid documents are not in its possession. The respondent No.2-Bank has given an explanation that the documents sought are sent to the investigation officer. However, in the communication dated 17.11.2020 sent by Police Inspector, Mekhri Circle, HAL at Annexure-J, it is clearly stated that the documents sought by the petitioner in IA No.IV are not available at HAL Police Station or 4th ACM Court, Bangalore. I am of the considered view that if the respondent No.2-Bank were to act in a bona fide manner and were not in possession of the aforesaid documents, they could have filed an affidavit to produce the certified copies or self-attested copies of the aforesaid documents. Hence, I am of the view that the defence of the respondent No.2-Bank that they are not in possession of the documents is to merely evade the production of documents - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 10. Be that as it may, these questions can be gone through by the trial Court while deciding the suit. At this stage, in my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application solely on the grounds that the respondent No.2-Bank has stated that it is not in possession and that the documents are handed over to the investigation officer. 11. Insofar as the relevance of the documents sought to be produced is concerned. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basanagouda (supra), the para 7 of the said judgment is extracted as follows; "7. The court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided the court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The court also has been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Therefore, the power to order production of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question…". - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope and ambit of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC and held that relevancy of sought document is required to be looked into by the trial Court by exercising the discretionary power. Considering the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the documents sought to be produced are relevant documents and the respondent No.2-Bank needs to produce the same before the Trial Court. 13. In the case of hand, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that both the respondents have colluded and defrauded the petitioner and based on such a pleading, a prayer is sought for recovery of the money. Hence, the petitioner sought the documents from respondent No.2- Bank to demonstrate as to whether respondent No.2-Bank has followed the prescribed norms or regulations in opening the account, release of the amount etc. As things stood thus, I am of the considered view that respondent No.2 is required to produce such documents before the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14580 WP No. 5710 of 2021 trial Court and those documents will aid the trial Court to decide the dispute between the parties. In view of the preceding analysis, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 25.02.2020 passed in Comm. O.S.No.8225/2012 by LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru passed on IA No.IV is set aside. iii. Consequently, IA No.IV filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC by the petitioner is allowed. iv. No order as to cost. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4