M/S Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes Pvt.Ltd. v. M/S Emu Lines Pvt.Ltd

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026WP/20419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), 11.06.2026; Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC); production of documents at belated stage / during evidence; Order VII Rule 14 CPC; I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.1294/2017; recovery of money suit; GST Registration Certificate; Board meeting resolution dated 02.02.2016; list of Board of Directors; courier receipt; examination of PW2; no prejudice or harm to defendants; right to cross-examine PW2 preserved; trial court order set aside; earlier similar application rejected 22.04.2021; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.10.2021 set aside; consequently I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC allowed; no orders as to costs. ¶¶49

M/S Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S Emu… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 28.10.2021 set aside; consequently I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC allowed; no orders as to costs.

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.10 — the plaintiff's application for production of documents in O.S.No.1294/2017 (a suit for recovery of money) — should be quashed/set aside.

¶¶27

Court's answer

Allowing the plaintiff to produce the aforesaid documents would not cause any prejudice to the other side, the petitioner having made a specific assertion that the defendants committed default in delivery of the goods.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶38

Key takeaways

Allowing the present application for production of documents would not cause any harm or prejudice to the defendants and would not affect the stand of the defendants.ratio¶¶45
It remains open to the defendants to cross-examine PW2 when the evidence is adduced and the documents are marked.ratio¶¶45
The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.1294/2017 is set aside and, consequently, I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC is allowed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.20419/2021 (GM-CPC), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s. Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes Pvt. Ltd. — plaintiff in O.S.No.1294/2017, a suit for recovery of money against M/s. Emu Lines Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent Nos.1 and 2) and M/s. Dragon Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.3) — allowed by Vijaykumar A. Patil J. on 11.06.2026. The order dated 28.10.2021 of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-9), rejecting I.A.No.10 — the plaintiff's application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC to produce and mark four documents (GST Registration Certificate, extract of the minutes of Board meeting resolution dated 02.02.2016, list of Board of Directors and courier receipt) along with the evidence of PW2 — was set aside and I.A.No.10 was allowed. The Court held that permitting production would cause no prejudice or harm to the defendants and would not affect their stand, they remaining free to cross-examine PW2 when the evidence is adduced and the documents are marked; and that, although an earlier application for production had been rejected on different grounds, the documents were necessary for complete adjudication of the suit. No orders as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20419/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. SRIVASAVI ADHESIVE TAPES PVT. LTD. NO.B-100, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND ALSO HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.17/2, 2ND FLOOR KODIGEHALLI, MAIN ROAD ABOVE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560092 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. ANEEL KUMAR D.N. S/O NAGARAJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. VITTALA SHETTY P, ADV.,)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. EMU LINES PVT. LTD., NO.120 (OLD 272) THAMBU CHETTY STREET AKBAR TOWER, 4^TH FLOR, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU-600001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

M/S. EMU LINES PVT. LTD., NO.5C, 408, KASTURI NAGAR EAST OF NGEF, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560016 REP. BY ITS AREA MANAGER.

¶16

M/S. DRAGON LOGISTICS PVT. LTD NO.111/A, MANJUNATHA NILAYA B M KAVAL, NEW BYAPPANAHALLI EXTENSION, INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560038 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. N. GANESH RAO, ADV., FOR SRI. RAJENDRA K.R. ADV., FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:17.11.2021, NOTICE TO R3 IS WAIVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

¶20

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-9) IN I.A.NO.10 IN O.S.NO.1294/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed challenging the 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 (for short, ‘the trial Court’ ).

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

It is to be noticed that the plaintiff is required to

¶40

prove its case with regard to the recovery of money and in order to prove the same, the plaintiff is required to adduce oral

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:28397 W.P. No.20419/2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

as well as documentary evidence and if the present application

¶45

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.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

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.

¶50

No orders to costs.

¶51

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶52

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M/S Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes Pvt.Ltd. v. M/S Emu Lines Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srivasavi Adhesive Tapes Pvt.Ltd. v. M/S Emu Lines Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H T Karunakar Hegde Vs Smt K Aparna

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Narayanappa

S K Manjunath Vs Smt S E Shobha

Smt. Parvathamma Vs Smt. Parvathi S Hegde

Hajirambi Vs Giddaiah Gowda

Hanumanthappa Vs Hanumanthappa