Sri Ganesha Sadhana Trust (R) Vs Chitradurga District Central Co. Operative Bank

¶1

1 -

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶4

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17277/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GANESHA SADHANA TRUST (R) (SRI. PRASANNA GANAPATHI BHAKTHA MANDALI) OPP. NEW BUS STAND HOSADURGA TOWN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. H.S. SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE H.N. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS BUSINESSMEN, HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

¶9

[DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DTD:22.09.2021]

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. GANESHA SADHANA TRUST (R) (SRI. PRASANNA GANAPATHI BHAKTHA MANDALI) OPP. NEW BUS STAND HOSADURGA TOWN REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. E.T. BAHUBALI S/O LATE ELKAL TAKANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BUSINESSMAN, HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADV.,)

¶14

2 -

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶17

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶18

AND:

¶19

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, CDCC BANK CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577537.

¶20

THE MANAGER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK HOSADURGA BRANCH HOSADURGA TOWN HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 31.08.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA IN O.S.NO.22/2020 ON I.A.NO.II UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS PER VIDE ANNX-D. REJECT THE APPLICATION DTD 20.04.2021 FILED BY THE R-1 AND R-2 ON IA NO.II UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA IN O.S.NO.22/2020 AS PER VIDE ANNX-G & ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 -

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶28

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.22/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga (for short, 'the Trial Court').

¶31

Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have filed a suit. In the said suit, they filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), praying to call the Chief Officer, T.M.C, Hosadurga, to produce the documents referred as a schedule to the application. It is submitted

¶32

that the documents sought to be produced are the mahazar and sketch which were created without notice to the petitioner. Hence, the said documents were challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, who has issued an

¶33

4 -

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶36

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶37

endorsement dated 23.09.2020 stating that the respondents have filed a suit and in view of the pendency of the said suit, no steps can be taken. It is further submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.09.2020 is challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.13004/2020 and this Court, in the said writ petition, stayed the communication dated 23.09.2020. Hence, the Trial Court cannot order for summoning of those documents and these aspects are not appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper perspective. It is also submitted that if the plaintiffs intend to produce the documents, he should have filed an application before the Authority or sought the documents under the provisions of

¶38

the Right to Information Act, 2005, and produced the same. It is contended that the prayer in the application is for production of documents and not to summon the witness and such an application would have been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by dismissing the application filed by the respondents.

¶39

5 -

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶42

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶43

Per contra , Sri.A.Mohammed Tahir, learned

¶44

counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has rightly considered the objection raised by the petitioner and held that mere production of documents whether created or not, cannot be decided at this stage and these documents are necessary for adjudication of the dispute. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶45

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶46

the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶47

The respondents have filed O.S.No.22/2020

¶48

seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and for the relief of mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein. In the said suit, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement. The Trial Court framed the issues. At

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶52

the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking prayer to issue an order calling the Chief Executive Officer, T.M.C, Hosadurga, to produce the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property shown in the application schedule. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing the objections. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the application. It is required to be noticed that the respondents-plaintiffs are making a specific assertion in the plaint that the petitioner-defendant has encroached the plaintiffs’ property and including such encroached portion, they have got khata in their name which was objected by the plaintiffs before the T.M.C. In view of the said objection, the T.M.C. visited the property, conducted spot mahazar, rough sketch and sketch indicating the encroachment and the plaintiffs sought the aforesaid documents as well as notices were issued to the defendant by the T.M.C. The said application was accompanied with

¶53

7 -

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶56

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶57

an affidavit of plaintiff No.2, which indicates that the said documents are necessary for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

¶58

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs are the documents which are created by the T.M.C. as well as the plaintiffs, in collusion, and the alleged sketch and survey mahazar were made without notice to the petitioner-defendant. Hence, the action of the T.M.C. was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner who failed to take any action. Hence, the writ petition was filed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.13004/2020. It is required to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition granted interim order on 19.11.2020 by recording a prima facie case. This Court has not stayed the sketch and survey of T.M.C. It

¶59

8 -

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶62

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶63

has only stayed the communication of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.09.2020.

¶64

Be that as it may, whether there is any

¶65

encroachment or not, as contended by the plaintiffs, is required to be proved by the plaintiffs by cogent and acceptable evidence and to substantiate the same, the plaintiffs are seeking to produce the said documents from the Authority. It is always open for the defendant to object in the suit by contending that the spot mahazar, rough sketch, sketch indicating the encroachment are drawn without notice to the defendant and the Trial Court is bound to consider the said objection. In my considered view, mere production of the documents sought in the suit would not amount to admitting the said documents or decreeing the suit by accepting the plaintiffs’ contention that there is an encroachment over the suit schedule property. It is also required to observe that the defendant has every right to object before the Trial Court if the

¶66

9 -

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:37864 W.P. No.17277/2021

¶69

CNR: KAHC010348672021

¶70

plaintiff places reliance on the documents produced at the time of arguments. It is needless to observe that again production of documents by the Chief Officer, T.M.C. in the suit and its acceptance or admissibility is definitely subject to the outcome of the writ petition in W.P.No.13004/2020.

¶71