- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20749 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G RAJENDRA NAIDU SON OF (LATE) GOVINDA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT #4, 1ST STREET, GALIVARI KANDIGI, AROKONAM, VELLORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 632 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAN DAS SON OF MARKONDA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT #1814/4, 13TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI - 600 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHU PRAKASH BABU D., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7TH OF JULY 2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2025 AND 2/2025 IN O.S.NO.1552 OF 2013 BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE H) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOWING IA NO.1/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.2/2025 IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1552/2013 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC was partly allowed by the Trial Court, which also allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant also under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent-defendant for declaration, partition and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In addition to contesting the suit, the respondent-defendant also filed an application I.A.No.4 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the said Act of 1996”) r/w Order VII Rule 11 CPC to refer the matter to arbitration in terms of Clause - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 No.7 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 20.11.2005 entered into between the petitioner and respondent. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order dated 14.02.2020 allowing the said application I.A.No.4 and consequently, dismissing the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff as not maintainable in law. The said order of the Trial Court was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.21162/2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 03.02.2025, which upheld the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court and issued certain directions in relation to the arbitral proceedings between the parties as hereunder: “ i. The writ petition is disposed off. ii. The arbitral proceedings initiated by the petitioner on 20.10.2010 in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.11.2005 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent is not terminated although, the mandate of the arbitrator Sri. Sadasiva Reddy stood terminated. iii. As a result the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is upheld. iv. Since, the respondent has not disputed the arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.11.2005 and the arbitrability of the dispute, it is open for the petitioner to invoke Section 15 (2) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.” 4. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that during the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P20. Subsequent to disposal of W.P.No.21162/2022 by this Court as stated supra, petitioner filed the instant application invoking Order 13 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking return of the aforesaid documents produced and marked by him at Exs.P1 to P20 in the suit before the Trial Court. So also, the respondent-defendant also filed an application under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC seeking return of two documents viz., Exs.P1 and P2, Sale Deeds both dated 29.12.2004 executed in his favour. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner in part by directing return of all documents at Exs.P3 to P20, but declined to return Exs.P1 and P2, back to the petitioner and instead directed the said documents to be given to the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to refusing/declining - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 to return Exs.P1 and P2 back to the petitioner, who had produced the same before the Trial Court and directing the said documents to be given to the respondent-defendant, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.11.2005 and the said original MOU was produced by the petitioner and marked as Ex.P3 on his behalf. In this context, it is necessary to extract the contents of the said MOU as hereunder: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into on this the Twentieth day of November Two Thousand Five (20.11.2005) at Bangalore. BETWEEN: SRI.M.MOHAN DOSS/ S/O SRI .MARKONDA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT C/o SRI. B. Muniramaswamy Nos. 16 & 17 , “ DAIVA KRUPA”, Chikkallasandra, Bengaluru – 560 061. HEREINAFTER called as the “ FIRST PARTY”. AND SRI. G. RAJENDRA NAIDU S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDA NAIDU - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. R/AT: 4, 1ST STREET, GALIVARI Kandigal Arokonam, Vellore District. Tamil Nadu Presently residing at No.26, 1st Floor 16th Man, Balaji Layout, Padmanabhanagar Bengaluru – 560 070. Hereinafter called as the “ SECOND PARTY” ( the expression “ First Party and Second Party” shall wherever the context so requires or admits, mean and include their, heirs, legal representatives, administrators and assigns, etc.,) WHEREAS, the parties herein joined together with an intention to carry on the business in Real Estate and in the said process, each Twenty Lakhs) only and have purchased 3 Acres 4 Guntas together with attached Kharab in Sy.No.50, Situated at Kaniminike Village, Kengeri Hobil, Bangalore South Taluk. Under two different deeds of sale dated: 29.12.2004 registered as Document No.36239 and 36287/2004-05 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore City. The description of the property as per the schedule given in the deeds of sale referred to above is described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Items No.1 and 2 of the schedule property. WHEREAS, due unavoidable reasons the Second Party could not come over to Bangalore City from his native place as on the date of registration of the deeds of sale referred to above, consequently both the sale deeds have been registered only in the name of the First Party though the sale consideration under the said two documents has been pald by the both the parties equally. Subsequent to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 registration of the sald documents Katha has also been transferred in the name of the First Party in the relevant revenue records in pursuance of the proceedings held in MR No.33/2004-05. WHEREAS, both the sale deeds are registered only in the name of the First Party, the parties herein agreed to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding stipulating the terms and conditions which are binding on both the parties. NOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITNESSESTH AS FOLLOWS That in pursuance of the foregoing, the parties herein have entered into this Memorandum of Understanding Incorporating all the terms and conditions agreed upon between them with regard to the schedule property; 1. The parties herein have equally invested the funds which were required to purchase the schedule property and to get the sale deeds dated: 29.12.2004 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengerl. 2. Both the parties being the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, each of them has agreed to invest funds that may be required in future equally for development of the schedule property in all respects. 3. It is agreed by the parties that the original documents of title, Revenue Records and such other documents in respect of the schedule property are given to the custody of the Second party, who shall keep them In his custody and he has also agreed to co-operate to furnish/produce the said documents when ever he is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 required to do so for the purposes of the development or such other activities. Copies of all the documents are given to the custody of the First Party. 4. It is further agreed that if both the parties desire to sell the schedule property prior to development or subsequent to any development, the benefits out of such sale shall be apportioned equally between the parties. 5. It is specifically agreed between the parties that if they prefer to partition the schedule property between themselves, the same shall be effected by meeting the expenses that may be required in that regard equally. 6. It is also further agreed between the parties herein that, the accounts pertaining to the schedule property shall be maintained by the both parties jointly and the books of account shall be in the custody of the Second Party. 7. The parties herein agree that in the event of mis understanding or dispute with regard to the schedule property the same shall be resolved through Arbitration and one Sri.Sadsiva Reddy, Advocate, No.1, Renuka Building, 2nd Main, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-09 shall be the Arbitrator. If the sald Arbitrator is not willing act as Arbitrator in which event both the parties shall opt such other person to be an Arbitrator and the decision of such Arbitrator/s shall be final and binding on the parties. SCHEDULE ITEM No.1: All that piece and parcel of the land measuring 1 Acre 22 Guntas together with attached Kharab - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 in Sy.No.50, Situate at Kaniminiki Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on: East by: Remaining Land in Sy.No.50 purchased in the name of the First Party, West by: Mysore Road, North by: Land belongs to Srl.Siddalah, South by: Government Road. ITEM No.2: All that piece and parcel of the land measuring 1 Acre 22 Guntas together with attached Kharab in Sy. No.50, Situate at Kaniminiki Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on:- East by: Land belongs to Sri. Mahendra Shah, West by: Remaining Land in Sy.No.50 purchased in the name of the First Party,, North by: Land belongs to Sri. Bommalingalah, South by: Government Road. Totally measuring 3 Acres 4 Guntas together with attached Kharab. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein above have affixed their respective signatures to this Memorandum of Understanding on the day, month and year first above written.” 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid MOU entered into between the petitioner and respondent, in particular, clause No.3 supra, both parties have categorically and unequivocally agreed and undertaken with each other that all original documents, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 revenue records and such other documents in respect of the schedule property were given to the custody of the petitioner (second party), who has agreed to furnish/produce said documents whenever he is required to do so for the purpose of development or such other activities and that copies of all the documents are given to the custody of the first party. It is therefore clear that as per the terms and conditions of the MOU undisputedly entered into between the petitioner and respondent, actual and legal custody and possession of all documents including the sale deeds at Exs.P1 and P2 would necessarily have to remain with the petitioner and not with the respondent; in fact, the only obligation cast upon the petitioner in this regard is to produce the said documents whenever he is required to do so for the purposes of development or such other activities, which does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since the dispute has arisen between the parties, which is pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the respondent had himself agreed and undertaking with the petitioner that the legal and actual custody and possession of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 Exs.P1 and P2 is to remain with the petitioner and not with the respondent as per Clause-3 of the MOU, it was impermissible in law for the Trial Court to not only decline to return back the said documents to the petitioner but also committing an error in directing the said documents to be given to the respondent by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside to this extent. 8. 8. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has committed an error in directing the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2 to be given to the custody and possession of the respondent-defendant without appreciating that undisputedly, the said documents were produced by the petitioner alone from his custody and possession and the same deserved to be returned back to him alone and not anyone else, muchless the respondent herein, who had undisputedly not produced the same from his custody or possession. In this context, it is necessary to extract the provisions contained in Order XIII Rule 9 CPC, which reads as under: ORDER XIII PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTS 9. Return of admitted documents.—(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 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 earlier then that prescribed by this rule if the person applying therefor— (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 with, 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.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 9. A plain reading of Sub-Rule (1) of Order XIII Rule 9 will clearly indicate that it is only the party/person, who produces a document who would be entitled to receive back/take return of such documents and any person other than a person producing such documents in a suit before the Court would not be entitled to seek custody or possession of documents not produced by him/her and such other person would have to necessarily take recourse to such other remedies as available in law; in other words, the right to seek return of documents in a suit is available only to a person producing such a document and not to anyone else, I am of the considered opinion that the statutory scheme envisaged under the provisions contained in Order XIII Rule 9 CPC does not permit/allow documents produced by a party/person to be returned to anyone else and it is only such party/person, who would be entitled to seek return of such documents produced by him/her. 10. It is also relevant to state that the right/claim of a party/person to custody of any document produced by other parties/persons is impermissible in law and the same has no nexus or connection whatsoever with the right of a party/person producing documents to seek return of the same by virtue of the provisions - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 contained in Order XIII Rule 9 CPC. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself and fell in error in declining/refusing to return Exs.P1 and P2 back to the petitioner despite the undisputed fact that it was the petitioner, who had produced the same and not the respondent who had not produced the said documents in the suit before the Trial Court, as a consequence of which, he was not entitled to seek custody or possession of the said documents and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. 11. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that though both the petitioner and respondent had contended that they were alone entitled to custody and possession of the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2, the trial court did not record any finding as to how and why the respondent who had undisputedly not produced the said documents which were actually / undisputedly produced by the plaintiff alone and in the absence of recording any such finding in this regard, the trial court clearly fell in error in passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside on this score also. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 12. Insofar as the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. Shankar Vs. E. Ramamohan Choudary – 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 12822 relied upon by the respondent is concerned, in the said case, there was no dispute as regards the person who was entitled to take return / receive back the documents produced into court and in that context, this Court without even notifying the successful respondent and in the peculiar / special / unique facts and circumstances obtaining in the said case, came to the conclusion that the order impugned deserved to be quashed and that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to receive back and take return of the documents produced by the respondent therein, since the writ petitioner was entitled to custody and possession of the said documents. Under these circumstances, the said judgment having been rendered in the factual matrix of the said case, no reliance can be placed upon the said judgment by the respondent in support of his claim and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside on this ground also. 13. It is a matter of record that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing Exs.P1 and P2 to be - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 given to the respondent, the respondent has received the said document from the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, having regard to the present order setting aside the impugned order in this regard, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent to return the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2 back to the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe. 14. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2025 insofar as it relates to rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC insofar as it relates to rejecting/declining to return the documents produced by the petitioner at Exs.P1 and P2 (Sale Deeds, both dated 29.12.2024) back to the petitioner and instead allowing the application filed by the respondent under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC and directing these documents at Exs.P1 and P2 to be given to the respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) Since the respondent has already taken custody and possession of the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2 from the Trial - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10672 WP No. 20749 of 2025 Court pursuant to the impugned order, which now stands set aside under this order, consequently, the respondent is directed to return back the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2 to the custody and possession of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) It is further directed that in the event the respondent does not return back the said documents at Exs.P1 and P2 back to the petitioner as stated supra, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate application(s) in this regard before the Trial Court, which shall pass appropriate orders on the said application(s), as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl/Bmc