IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27332 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S. MOTILAL BANARASIDASS PUBLISHERS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND EXISTING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-44, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI AND BRANCH OFFICE AT 236, 9TH MAIN III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH JAIN.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI. KAMALACHARAN S.R., ADVOCATE)

MEGHA MOHAN AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KARNATAKA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK)

HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CONNAUGHT CIRCUS P.O.BOX 317, NEW DELHI - 110 001 ANDA BRANCH OFFICE AT ARYA SAMAJ ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI - 110 005.

…RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 2.01.2025)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.100/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on application filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act in O.S.No.100/2012 dated 21.03.2017, by the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff is before this Court.

2. The suit is filed to pass a decree for an amount of Rs.20,53,134/- in favour of the plaintiff and to pass decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant from raising any demand against the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he had a current account with the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank and the said bank merged with the defendant bank in the year 2000. In the month of September and October, the defendant appointed merchant establishments for accepting Visa and Master Credit Cards and the plaintiff is appointed as a member of the Merchant establishment for accepting the Visa and Master Credit Cards and other nominated agencies to its customers and thereafter, a merchant agreement was executed on or about 8^th June 2001 and the plaintiff has taken different contentions and how he is entitled for the recovery of money. In the written statement, the defendant has also acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was one of such merchants of the bank, who was appointed in terms and in accordance with the agreement dated 8^th June, 2001 executed between the plaintiff and the bank. The defendant had also stated about the supplement agreement entered on the same date i.e., 8^th June 2001. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1 under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC seeking necessary order to the defendant bank to produce the agreement dated 08.06.2001 and supplementary agreement dated 08.06.2001. The Trial Court by order dated 09.06.2016 had allowed the said application directing the bank to adduce the original agreement and the original supplementary agreement both by the next date of hearing.

3. While passing such an order, the Trial Court observed that the defendant bank is fair enough to admit that the documents sought for are very much in its possession, but the defendant bank has no locus standi to say as to whether this documents sought for are relevant or not at this particular stage. Thereafter, a memo dated 28.10.2016, is filed stating that the documents are not traceable, in future if the documents are traced then they will place the same before the Court. At that juncture, the petitioner has come up with an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to mark the photocopies of Mercantile agreement dated 08.06.2001 and supplementary Mercantile Agreement dated 08.06.2001 during the course of trial that came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by way of this impugned order. The Trial Court further obs