DTD

8.12.2016

PASSED

BY

LEARNED

II

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN

2

O.S.NO.33/2014

PRODUCED

AT

ANNEXURE-F

AND

THEREBY

DIRECT

THE

RESPONDENT

TO

CAUSE

PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FOR IN THE

NTOICE DTD 5.10.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER

ORDER XI RULE 16 OF CPC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D

TO THIS PETITION.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner-defendant, who is questioning the order

dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learned II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga in O.S.No.33/2014 as

per Annexure-F refusing the prayer of the petitioner -

defendant to cause production of the documents as

sought by the petitioner - defendant.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The respondent - plaintiff has instituted a suit in

O.S.No.33/2014

for

recovery

of

sum

of

Rs.10,22,000/-. The respondent - plaintiff specifically

3

claimed that the present petitioner - defendant

approached one of the partner of the firm by name

K.R.Gopal seeking financial assistance by way of

advance for supplying of Areca nut grown by the

petitioner. The respondent - plaintiff has further

contended that he has agreed to advance and the

present petitioner accordingly borrowed a sum of

Rs.7,67,000/- on 06.09.2012 by way of cheque

bearing No.9855 drawn on Karnataka Bank, APMC

Yard Shivamogga on an interest at the rate of

23% per annum. The respondent - plaintiff claimed

that the advance made by the respondent - plaintiff is

duly recorded in the records maintained by the

respondent - plaintiff in the course of its regular

business.

3. The respondent - plaintiff grievance is that

the petitioner - defendant having availed advance

amount failed to supply Areca nut and also failed to

4

repay the borrowed amount and therefore, the

present suit.

4. The petitioner - defendant on receipt of

summons tendered appearance and stoutly denied the

entire averments made in the plaint by filing written

statement. The present petitioner - defendant at para

No.7 of the written statement specifically contended

that he has settled accounts on 21.12.2000 and

therefore, there are no transaction or any liability as

pleaded by the respondent - plaintiff and as such,

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The respondent - plaintiff to substantiate its

claim have lead in oral evidence and also produced

documentary evidence. When the matter was posted

for cross-examination of the plaintiff, the petitioner -

defendant has come with the notice by invoking

provisions under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC., calling

5

upon the respondent - plaintiff to furnish the accounts

of

the

plaintiff

-

defendant

maintained

from

01.04.2000 till 31.03.2014. The said application was

strongly opposed by the respondent - plaintiff by filing

objection. The learned Judge having examined the

rival

contentions

has

proceeded

to

reject

the

application. It is against this rejection, the petitioner -

defendant is before this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner - defendant and leaned counsel appearing

for the respondent - plaintiff. Perused the order under

challenge.

7. I have also given my anxious consideration to

the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the defendant.

8. The suit is one for recovery of money. The

plaintiff has specifically claimed that he has advanced

6

a sum of Rs.7,67,000/- by way of cheque bearing

No.9855 drawn on Karnataka Bank, APMC Yard

Shivamogga

on

06.09.2012.

The

petitioner

-

defendant claimed that he has settled all the accounts

and he has no transactions. The respondent - plaintiff

has commenced by leading oral evidence and also

produced documentary evidence. When the matter

was set down for cross-examination of P.W.1, the

present notice came to be filed calling upon the

respondent - plaintiff to furnish the documents by

invoking provisions under Order 11 Rule 16 of CPC.,

To invoke the provisions of Order 11 Rule 16 of