Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1851 (KAR)

P. C. Ananda Lakshmi v. Sudha Rao

2025-12-15

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2025
ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. This petition is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2025 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.2914/2017 by XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. In the suit filed in the year 2017, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to produce certain documents in order to prove his case. The documents sought to be produced are as under: "1. Notarised copy of letter dated 15-10-2024 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to Sri.Vijaya Kumar Reddy. 2. Notarised copy of petition in (LRF) V.P.C.No.1/96-97 dated 02-08-1996 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, filed by A. Prahalad Rao, issued under R.T.I.Act. 3. Notarised copy of List of Documents dated 02- 08-1996 filed by the Petitioner A. Prahalad Rao in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act. 4. Notarised copy of sketch dated 05-06-1990 produced by the Petitioner in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the filed of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act. 5. Notarised copy of affidavit dated 18-06-1996 filed by the Respondent in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act." 4. In the affidavit annexed to the application seeking production of these documents, the plaintiff has narrated the fact at paras-6 7 and 10 as to why he produces the documents. 5. It is the statement of learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that he seeks to produce these documents since he made an application under RTI Act before the Deputy Commissioner for certified copy of the document in (LRF) V.P.C.No.1/1996-97, which includes the survey sketch dated 05.06.1990 relied upon by one A.Prahalad Rao locating property in Sy.No.4 on Western side. It is also stated in the affidavit that since there is no original documents in the said file, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru refused to grant certified copies and on the other hand issued photostat copies of the same under the RTI Act. It is also stated in the affidavit that since there is no original documents in the said file, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru refused to grant certified copies and on the other hand issued photostat copies of the same under the RTI Act. It is also stated that the said documents is annexed to the application are very much relevant to show the identity and location of the property belonging to defendant No.3, which is on the Western side of Sy.No.4 and not on the Eastern side as claimed by defendant No.3. 6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that the documents are obtained under RTI Act by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and there was no original documents available with the petitioner or respondent No.3 and the documents secured by the plaintiff are now sought to be produced. It is clearly stated as they are the "xerox copies" and the said application has been rejected by the trial Judge without proper application of mind. The documents sought to be produced cannot be refused by the trial Court and in order to meet the ends of justice, when there is no documents available, the plaintiff seeks to produce the secondary evidence, the same can be accepted by the trial Court. However, the trial Court has hypothetically rejected the application. Hence, the impugned order is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be set-aside and the plaintiff be permitted to produce the document. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 vehemently contends that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is sustainable in law and also on the facts, as the plaintiff has not made out any good ground or cogent reasons to permit him to produce these documents, which he could have produced at the earlier point of time. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 further contends that the learned trial Judge has correctly held at para-8 of its order as to why production of documents are not permissible. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 further contends that the learned trial Judge has correctly held at para-8 of its order as to why production of documents are not permissible. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 that when there are original documents of the said Photostat copies of the documents which now sought to be produced are not available, the said documents cannot be produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, he sustains the impugned order by contending that there is no illegality and the petition requires to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant No.3. 10. Apparently, it is not in dispute that an application in IA.No.16 is filed by the plaintiff only for production of documents as stated therein at Sl.Nos.1 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he could not secure the original documents. Therefore, he applied and secured the certified copies of the said documents under the RTI Act from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, which includes the survey sketch. It is further contended that since there is no original documents on the file of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, who refused to grant certified copies, they have got issued 'xerox copies' of the said documents under the RTI Act and after securing the same, he is now filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to produce those documents before the trial Court and show identity and location of the property belonging to defendant No.3 which was on the Western side of Sy.No.4 and not on the Eastern side as claimed by defendant No.3. Now in order to consider this application, it is relevant to see as what the trial Court has opined to reject the said application and what is the reasoning and finding of the trial Court. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any good ground or cogent reason made by the trial Court as to why the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, are refused from production of the same by the plaintiff. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any good ground or cogent reason made by the trial Court as to why the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, are refused from production of the same by the plaintiff. Though this Court has made an attempt to see any particular reasoning provided by learned trial Judge, it is unable to find out any reasoning prescribed by learned trial Judge except at para-8 of the impugned order, which also does not deal with as to why production of documents is rejected except stating that as per the averments made in the affidavit annexed to applications in IA.Nos.16 and 17, it is categorically contended that, when the plaintiff made an application under RTI Act, before Deputy Commissioner for obtaining the certified copy of the proceedings in LRF No.1/96-97, the office of the Deputy Commissioner has issued copies of the proposed documents as there is no survey sketch/ documents in the file of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of certified copies and therefore, the copies are issued under RTI Act. 12. In the above case, the plaintiff is seeking for production of the documents which were allegedly produced by the predecessor in title of the defendant No.3 before Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff has given account of the existence of the original or certified copies of the documents. 12. In the above case, the plaintiff is seeking for production of the documents which were allegedly produced by the predecessor in title of the defendant No.3 before Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff has given account of the existence of the original or certified copies of the documents. Under Section 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents in the following case namely : "(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— (i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or (ii) of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court; or (iii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 64 such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Adhiniyam, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection." 13. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is absolutely no finding or reasoning given by the learned trial Judge as to why the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC in IA.No.16 for production of documents, is rejected. Learned trial Judge has misdirected himself as to how the foundation has to be laid on consideration of the secondary evidence that could be produced. Learned trial Judge has misdirected himself as to how the foundation has to be laid on consideration of the secondary evidence that could be produced. In the present case, though it is contended by learned counsel for plaintiff that he has filed three applications in IA.Nos.16, 17 and 18. The present application is IA.No.16, the order impugned herein is only for production of documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC. The other applications which were also filed together a common order is passed on IA.No.17 filed under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act and IA.No.18 filed under Section 151 of CPC, came to be rejected. Therefore, apparently, it is seen that the trial Court has misconstrued the provisions of law under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. It would be relevant at this stage to extract Rule 14(3) of Order VII of CPC as under: "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) xxx" 14. The afore-extracted provision itself is very clear with regard to production of documents, which ought to have been produced by the plaintiff, but the same was not produced or entered accordingly at the earliest point of time, shall not be produced without leave of the Court or received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. This petition is filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the trial Court refused the production of documents by the plaintiff, which he could not produce along with the plaint. There are two parts in the provision, the first part would be the documents shall not be received without leave of the Court and second part would be received the documents in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. There are two parts in the provision, the first part would be the documents shall not be received without leave of the Court and second part would be received the documents in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The production of documents is at the liberty of the plaintiff and the second part of it is whether the trial Court receives it or not, is the discretion of the Court and so also on the objection if any, filed by the defendants or suo motu by the Court on such document being accepted or received in any evidence. Under the circumstances, the application now filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC is merely to produce the document. 15. The said application ought to have been allowed rather than rejecting the same for production of documents. It is also apparent that mere production of the document would not be marking/acceptance of the document or proof of the document. Under the circumstances, these facts and legal position have been ignored by the trial Court and has relied on the secondary evidence and non production of originals by the trial Court led to dismissal of the said application, which is not correct and the same requires to be set-aside. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This writ petition is allowed ii) The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.2914/2017 by XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, is hereby set-aside and consequently, IA.No.16/2025 is allowed; iii) The plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents as sought. However, it is made clear that mere production of the documents would not be proof or evidence of the documents.