- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30864 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS (P) LIMITED NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AS M/S SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS LIMITED, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.507, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 019 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL: SRI. GAURAV ARORA, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF OM PRAKASH ARORA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. FIRE PRO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICES AT: NO.10 11, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL SECOND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 MR. KIDAMBI RAMANUJACHARI, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF KIDAMBI VIJAYARGHAVACHARI. 2. M/S SUDHIR GENSETS LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.507, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019 (INDIA) CONSORTIUM CORPORATE OFFICE AT: PLOT NO.1, SECTOR-34, E.H.T.P. GURGAN - 122 01 (HARYANA) INDIA AND OFFICE AT: SHOP NO.4, GROUND FLOOR, CHAUHAN MARKET SECTOR, 44 - NOIDA. 3. MR.SUDHIR SETH AGED 72 YEARS SON OF KESHAP CHAND SETH, MANAGING DIRECTOR SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, NO.507, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019 (INDIA). 4. MR.SUDHIR SETH, AGED 72 YEARS SON OF KESHAP CHAND SETH, MANAGING DIRECTOR SUDHIR GENSETS LIMITED, NO.507, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 019 (INDIA). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.K.DILIP., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED ORDER DATED 11-09-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K PASSED ON NOTICE DATED 26.06.2025 TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UNDER ORDER XII RULE 8 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, READ WITH SECTION 66 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S. NO.9673/2015 PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.38) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE FIRST RESPONDENT'S NOTICE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UNDER ORDER XII RULE 8 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, READ WITH SECTION 66 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the first defendant in O.S.No.9673 of 2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, whereby the notice issued by the first respondent/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard Sri.M.K.Venkatramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.N.K.Dilip, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/first defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.84,08,142/- together with interest @ 24% and for other reliefs. After completion of trial, the plaintiff/first respondent issued the instant notice invoking Order XII Rule 8 of CPC, in terms of Form 12 of Appendix-C, CPC calling upon the first defendant/petitioner to produce the following documents: Sl.No. Particulars of the Document 1 Books of accounts of the defendants which reflect the invoices of the plaintiff. 2 The bank statement and the ledger statement that reflects the payments made to the plaintiff on 17.02.2011. 3 The fire NOC issued in respect of the DMRCL Project. 4. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice interalia contending that the said documents are not readily available with him and as they have shifted their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 office and it may be kept in a separate office or lost, which cannot be traced at this juncture. 5. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to produce the documents and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have custody or possession of the documents sought for in the aforesaid notice and as such, the question directing the petitioner to produce the said documents would not arise and the impugned order may be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner does not produce the documents, the Trial Court may be directed to draw inference/adverse inference against the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9064 WP No. 30864 of 2025 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the specific assertion made by the petitioner that they do not have custody or possession of the documents, I deem it just and appropriate to modify the impugned order and dispose of the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued by the respondent to the petitioner under Order XII Rule 8 CPC by directing the Trial Court to draw inference/adverse inference against the petitioner for non-production of the said document, bearing in mind the evidence of DW-1 and to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. All rival contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 92