Defendant challenged a commercial court order allowing the plaintiff to produce original documents at trial though photocopies were filed with the plaint. The High Court held the lapse caused no prejudice to the defendant and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11942 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED HASSAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE M. YUSUFF SAIT, R/A NO.102, REGENCY DAVIS, NO.13, DAVIS ROAD, BENGALURU-560084
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY DR. PRAJWAL K. ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE W.P. ON COSTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 28.03.2024 IN COM O.S.471/2023 ISSUED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-84) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILSED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant in Commercial O.S.No.471/2023 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru has filed this petition challenging an order dated 28.03.2024, by which, an application filed by the plaintiff to produce documents were allowed.
the suit was filed, there was no need to call for any objections from the defendant. Consequently, it allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to produce the originals of the documents. On the said date, the plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and the documents so produced were marked as Exs.P1 and P12.
NC: 2024:KHC:43254 WP No. 11942 of 2024
were the originals of the documents that were filed along with the plaint. He submits that though there is some error on the part of the plaintiff in not producing the original documents at the time of filing the suit, the same did not cause any prejudice to the defendant more particularly, when the defendant did not raise any objection that the documents which are now sought to be produced were not the documents that were produced at the time of filing the suit.
Sudhir Kumar referred supra.
2023 and the order sheet discloses that the plaintiff has not protracted the proceedings before the Commercial Court. The
documents which the plaintiff intended to produce along with the application were the originals of the documents that were filed along with the plaint. Therefore, though there was some lapse on the part of the plaintiff in not producing the documents at the time of filing the plaint, this did not in any way prejudice or affect the defendant in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, Trial Court was right in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to produce original documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC without calling for objections from the defendant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudhir Kumar Alias S.Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.BRelied on¶8
(2021) 13 SCC 71 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MR. MOHAMMED HASSAN
MRS. SOPHIE SIVASHANKAR
MR. RANDHIR SIVASHANKAR
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
