M/S Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes PVT.LTD. vs. M/S Emu Lines PVT.LTD

Sri.Vittala Shetty P., learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff could not produce some of the crucial documents, therefore, the petitioner intends to produce the documents during the evidence of PW2, hence, filed an application for production of documents which came to be rejected by trial Court on the ground that these documents were very much available to the petitioner-plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit and there is enormous delay. It is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff intends to produce GST registration certificate, extract of the minutes of Board meeting resolution and list of Board of Directors and courier receipt. It is further submitted that the suit being one for recovery of money against the defendants, these documents are necessary to adjudicate the dispute. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28397

Per contra, Sri.N.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for Sri.Rajendra K.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that PW1 has filed a similar application which came to be rejected by the trial Court on 22.04.2021. It is submitted that filing of application for production of document belatedly is to overcome the evidence on record, hence, the same cannot be allowed. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.1294/2017 for recovery of money against the defendants making certain assertions. In the said suit, the defendants have filed detailed written statement. The plaintiff examined PW1 and got marked certain documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff intended to examine PW2 and along with the evidence of PW2, the plaintiff intends to produce and mark four documents. The application for production of documents came HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28397 to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the documents were in the custody of the plaintiff when the suit was instituted, hence belated application cannot be entertained. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff is seeking to produce GST Registration Certificate, extract of the minutes of Board meeting resolution dated 02.02.2016 and list of Board of Directors and courier receipt. In my considered view, by allowing the plaintiff to produce the aforesaid documents would not cause any prejudice to the other side as the petitioner is making specific assertion that the defendants have committed default in delivery of the goods, hence, suit for recovery of money is filed.

Though the earlier application for production of documents was rejected on different grounds and in view of the necessity of the documents in the suit for complete adjudication, I am of the view that the application deserves to be allowed.

It is to be noticed that the plaintiff is required to prove its case with regard to the recovery of money and in order to prove the same, the plaintiff is required to adduce oral HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28397 as well as documentary evidence and if the present application for production of documents is allowed it would not cause any harm or prejudice to the defendants and it will not affect the stand of the defendants. It is always open for the defendants to cross-examine PW2 if the evidence is adduced and these documents are marked.

With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.10.2021 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.1294/2017 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC is allowed. No orders to costs. (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE