ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. In W.P.No.14517/2024: The petitioner-defendant No.9 is at the doors of this court calling in question the orders passed on two interlocutory applications in I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.14 in Commercial O.S.No. 1443/2014. The applications are preferred under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of production of documents and summoning of witnesses. 2. Heard Sri.Ramesh P Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 and K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent No.11. 3. The transaction is between the petitioner - 9 th defendant and the respondent - the plaintiff. The suit between the two is instituted for relief of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell that is executed between the 9th defendant and the plaintiff. The issue in the lis concerns the applications filed by the petitioner-9 th defendant. During the proceedings, the present petitioner files two applications I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.14 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking summoning of documents and witnesses in support of his claim as projected in the Written Statement. The concerned court allows application I.A.No.13 in part by summoning of the officers of the Income Tax Department to depose the documents. The other application i.e., I.A.No.14 which was for summoning of witnesses has been turned down on the score that the witnesses sought to be summoned have nothing to do with the transaction between the plaintiff and the 9th defendant qua the subject property, the suit for which is preferred by the respondent herein, the plaintiff for specific performance. It is the rejection of these two orders that has driven the 9th defendant to this court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend taking this court to the list of witnesses seeking to demonstrate that the plaintiff and others have formed a coterie of financers and used to transact with the defendant and therefore, the two witnesses that are found in the list of witnesses i.e., 6 and 12 are imperative to be summoned for the purpose of proving that defendant had repaid substantial amount to those persons towards the consideration in the Agreement to Sell. The learned counsel submit that the concerned court ought to have allowed the applications seeking summoning of those witnesses as they were necessary to prove the case of the defendant. 5. The learned counsel submit that the concerned court ought to have allowed the applications seeking summoning of those witnesses as they were necessary to prove the case of the defendant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff before the concerned court would on the strength of those documents itself contend that they are the witnesses that are wanting to be summoned have nothing to do with the transaction between the plaintiffs and the 9th defendant. They are neither signatories to the documents that are placed before the court for a relief of specific performance qua the parties. He would submit that the order passed by the concerned court is in tune with law and the petition be dismissed. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The narrated facts are a matter of record. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred a suit in Commercial O.S.No.1443/2014 seeking specific performance against the 9th defendant qua a document i.e., Agreement of Sale. Before the concerned court, the 9th defendant files two applications as observed hereinabove for summoning of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for the purpose of deposing qua the documents that are produced by the plaintiff on the score that the documents that are produced are all concocted. The concerned court on the following reasons has allowed the application in part. "7. Point No. 1: - The Defendant No. 9 contention that the said documents are manipulated and concocted documents and such returns and balance sheets are not the true copies of the returns. He has filed them just to support his claim. If the returns and balance sheets sought for are summoned they will indicate that they are fabricated to suit the case of the Plaintiff and are not genuine. 8. In this case, on perusal of records it reveals that the Plaintiff has produced income tax return pertaining to Plaintiff No.1 and his wife which is marked at Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. So, in order to determine whether this income tax return are original documents or fake documents, summoning the documents from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. However, the evidence of above said witness is not necessary. So, in order to determine whether this income tax return are original documents or fake documents, summoning the documents from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. However, the evidence of above said witness is not necessary. Hence, in my opinion it is just and proper to give the direction to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax of Income Tax Department, queens Road, Bengaluru to produce the income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2023-2024 along with respective balance sheet of Plaintiff, Plaintiff No.2 and Smt.Ambath? Saritha. 9. The Defendant No.9 sought the income tax returns for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2023-2024 of Palle Chandrashekar Reddy. Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC reads as under: "Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same". AIR 1967 Mysore 37 - Syed Yasin vs. Syed Shaha Mohd Hussei wherein Hon'ble Mysore High court held that "A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.16 R.21, O.16 R.14, O.16 R.1, O.16 R.19, O.16 R.20 - Words 'required to give evidence' in O.16, R21 Connotation of - Words denote not voluntary act of giving evidence by party in his own favour but required to do so by the other side or Court - R.21 indicates that one party to suit can examine the other party as his witness or require him to produce documents - If intention of Legislature was to impose any limitations on power of party in summoning and examining the other party as a witness it would have specifically stated so, in O.16, R.1, R.19 and R.20 as it has done in R.14 - If Court comes to conclusion that prayer of party to summon and examine other party to suit as his witness is abuse of process of Court it can disallow the prayer under S.157". From the above provision, it is clear that the court has power to issue summons to person to produce documents. 10. The summons to person to produce documents should be necessarily used for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the suit. The documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. From the above provision, it is clear that the court has power to issue summons to person to produce documents. 10. The summons to person to produce documents should be necessarily used for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the suit. The documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. Section 130 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims." 11. In the present case, the Palle Chandrashekar Reddy is not a party in this case. I do not find any reason to direct the income tax department to produced the income tax returns of Palle Chandrashekar Reddy which is not relevant to the is case and however he has not a party to this case. In this case the Plaintiffs have not produced income tax returns of the Plaintiff No.2. Under these circumstances, the question of manipulation and concoction does not arise. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the application is filed by the Defendant No.9 is to be allowed in part. 12. Point No.2: Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The I.A. No.XIII filed by the defendant No.9 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC is hereby allowed in part. Issue summons to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department, queens Road, Bengaluru to permitted to produce the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2023-24 to Plaintiff No.1 and his wife." 8. The concerned court issues summons to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to produce all the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2023-24 but refuses to issue summons for appearance of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on the score that the income tax records would speak for themselves if there is any transaction between the parties. No fault can be found with the order passed quoted supra of the application. 9. Learned counsel at this juncture would rely on paragraph 11 of the order impugned qua I.A.No.13. No fault can be found with the order passed quoted supra of the application. 9. Learned counsel at this juncture would rely on paragraph 11 of the order impugned qua I.A.No.13. The concerned court has proceeded to pass the order on the score that the records pertaining to Palle Chandrashekar Reddy, the 2 nd plaintiff need not be summoned or the Income Tax authorities need not be called to depose with regard to Palle Chandrashekar Reddy solely on the score that he is not a party to the case. The concerned court appears to have been oblivious with regard to the array of parties in the suit. The 2 nd plaintiff is Palle Chandrashekar Reddy. Therefore, the concerned court could not have passed an order on the reason that he is not a party. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the documents pertaining to Palle Chandrashekar Reddy is also summoned, they would have no objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner would accept the same. 10. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition qua I.A.No.13 filed in Commercial O.S.No.1443/2014 on modifying the order and a direction that the records pertaining to Palle Chandrashekar Reddy i.e., Income Tax Returns also be summoned and produced before the court. The order on I.A.No.13 is modified to the said extent. 11. In so far as I.A.No.14 is concerned, that is filed seeking summoning of witness is concerned. The witnesses that are sought to be summoned are as follows: 12. The affidavit in support of summoning of the witnesses reads as follows: " AFFIDAVIT I,. V. Raghavendra, S/o. late Sri.No.Vasudevachar, aged about 56 years, No.50, I floor, 50 feet Road, I Block, 3rd Phase, Opp. Kathriguppe Water Tank, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru- 56,0 085, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the Defendant No.9 in the above case and I know the facts of the case. 2. I say that the plaintiffs and the witnesses together had formed group (syndicate) and used to advance loans to me and take the Agreements of sale as they had no licence for money lending. Later, after repayment of the loan amount and interest they used to cancel the agreements by executing the Cancellation Deeds or by joining the Sale deeds selling the said properties to the third parties directly. Later, after repayment of the loan amount and interest they used to cancel the agreements by executing the Cancellation Deeds or by joining the Sale deeds selling the said properties to the third parties directly. If they were to be real sale Agreements they would not have cancelled them or would not have joined the sale deeds selling the same properties to third parties. 3. Having entered into such above Sale Agreements, the above witnesses ought to have shown the aforesaid investments in the form of Sale agreements in their Income tax accounts if they really interested in buying property. The aforesaid documents indicate that the transactions made jointly with the plaintiff or other group members in the guise of sale agreements are money-lending transactions as contended by me in my Written Statements. 4. I will suffer grave and irreparable loss and injury if the witnesses shown in the list are not summoned and my defence will suffer. The plaintiffs will not suffer anything if the witnesses are summoned give evidence and produce documents. WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue summons to the witnesses, in the interest of justice." 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff and witnesses formed a group and used to advance loans. The statement is neither hear nor there. The learned counsel would further contend that at least witnesses Nos.6 and 12 are summoned as they are signatories to the document i.e., the instrument that is before the concerned court the registered Agreement of Sale. A perusal of the document would not indicate that witnesses Nos.6 and 12 are signatories of any kind. The attempt that is sought to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they have signed on certain receipts which was towards repayment that would again leave the petitioner neither here nor there. Therefore, the order that is passed by the concerned court rejecting the application seeking summoning of witnesses is based on cogent reasons, the reasons so rendered are as follows: "13. The summons to person to produce documents should be necessarily used for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the suit. The documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. The summons to person to produce documents should be necessarily used for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the suit. The documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. Section 130 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims." 14. In the present case, the witnesses mentioned in the list of this application are not a party to this suit. Further, the sale agreement executed by the proposed witnesses are not the subject matter of the suit. Under these circumstances, the witnesses ought not to have been compelled to produce the income tax return and sources of income as prayed by the Defendant in this application. 15. According to the Defendant that Sudhakar A.V., B. Veeranjaneya Reddy, Kotra Mallikarjuna, Pulla Naidu, G. Praveen Kumar, J.Suresh Kumar, J. Madhisudhan, T.Vasanth Kumar, Rangedevarajulu, Siruguppa Krishna Prasad, Nagababu, Smt.P. Umadevi and Bhaskar reddy formed Syndicate and advanced loans and took sale agreements to secure the repayments and so there evidence is necessary to establish the Defendant case. 16. Admittedly, these are the persons are not a party to this case and further the averments of the plaint does not discloses the name of these persons regarding any transactions made by the Plaintiff along with these persons. Further, there is no documents to shows that before this court, the Plaintiff and above said persons are formed a group of financiers. Hence, i hold that application filed by the Defendant is deserves to be dismissed 17. Point No.2 : Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The I.A. No.XIV filed by the defendant No.9 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC No.9 is hereby dismissed. " 14. I do not find any perversity for entertainment of petition except to the modification above made qua I.A.No.13. The petition stands allowed in part, the order on I.A.No.13 stands modified to the extent as indicated in the order. The order of I.A.No.14 does not warrant any interference. Ordered accordingly. " 14. I do not find any perversity for entertainment of petition except to the modification above made qua I.A.No.13. The petition stands allowed in part, the order on I.A.No.13 stands modified to the extent as indicated in the order. The order of I.A.No.14 does not warrant any interference. Ordered accordingly. In W.P.No.15082/2024: 15. The facts obtaining in the aforesaid companion petition forms the facts in the subject lis as well. On the same facts, the prayer that is sought by the petitioner is to be noticed. It reads as follows: "i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order set aside the order dated 30.03.2024, dismissing the IA No.13 in part, in Com.O.S.No.1442/2014, pending before the LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83), and allow the IA No.13, (Ann-A1) so far to summon the Income Tax returns of Sri.Kamboji Mallikarjuna; and ii) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order set aside the order dated 30.03.2024, dismissing the IA No.14, in Com.O.S.No.1442/2014, pending before the LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 83), and allow the IA No.14, (Ann-A2) so far to summon the witnesses; and iii) Grant such other or further reliefs as are just to the facts of the case, in the interest of justice." 16. The transaction between the parties is the same as is narrated in the companion petition. What drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is rejection of an application in I.A.No.13 in Commercial O.S.No.1442/2014. 17. Insofar as the other application I.A.No.14 is concerned, the reason for partial interference was on the statement of the respondent having no objection to summon the documents of Palle Chandrashekara Reddy. That was on the reason of an erroneous observation by the concerned Court on the application I.A.No.14. Insofar as I.A.No.13 is concerned, the application of the petitioner was to summon the records of one Sri. Kamboji Mallikarjuna. The details of records sought, is as follows: "For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the defendant No.9 prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the under mentioned witnesses to give evidence and produce the documents mentioned against their name, in the interest of justice. Kamboji Mallikarjuna. The details of records sought, is as follows: "For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the defendant No.9 prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the under mentioned witnesses to give evidence and produce the documents mentioned against their name, in the interest of justice. Name of witnesses Required to give evidence and produce the documents 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Quens Road, Bengaluru Income tax Returns for the Asst.Years 2009-10 to 2023-24 along with the respective Balance Sheets of (i) the plaintiff Mr.Kiran Kumar Ambati PAN No:AAYPA8418Q, (ii) (ii) Sri. Palle Chandrashekar Reddy with PAN No:ABOPP7535L (iii) Sri. Kamboji Mallikarjuna: and (iv) Smt. Abati Saritha with PAN No:ATXPS8343N Bengaluru Date: 14.02.2024 Advocate for Defendant No.9" At Sl.No.3, the records of Sri. Kamboji Mallikarjuna is sought. The concerned Court while answering the application does not even whisper about the records of Sri Kamboji Mallikarjuna being sought. The order in the companion petition is copied and pasted to both the applications. 18. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.9 submits that the records of Sri. Kamboji Mallikarjuna can be permitted to be summoned for the reason that, he is plaintiff No.2. 19. His submission is placed on record. 20. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with modification of the order on I.A.No.13 directing the records of Sri. Kamboji Mallikarjuna - plaintiff No.2 i.e., the Income Tax Returns from 2009-10 to 2024-25 to be placed before the Court. With the aforesaid observations/modification and to that extent, petition stands disposed.