Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33653
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
M/S. NYKOS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S. SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 20175 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)|COM. O.S. NO. 107/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR
For the Respondents: SRI. NISHANTH A.V.
The court affirmed that under Order XI Rule 5 of the CPC, plaintiffs can produce documents to counter a defendant's claims, even post written statement filing, emphasizing the importance of allowing such documents for justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rule 5 - Application for production of documents - Rejection of application in I.A.No.8 was challenged by petitioner - Court emphasized that production of documents is necessary to counter claims set up by the defendant, even after filing the written statement - The statutory interpretation confirms the entitlement of a plaintiff to produce documents at this stage, particularly those relevant to the defense put forth by the defendant in their written statement. (Paras 6-12)
(B) Scope of Civil Procedure - The court held that the plaintiff has a right to produce documents necessary to rebut the defendant's written statement, invoking exceptions in the procedural rules about document disclosure. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a hospitality company, contested an order rejecting its application to produce documents necessary for countering defenses put forth by the defendant in a commercial suit. A mediation attempt failed prior to filing the application.
Findings of Court:
The concerned court's refusal to allow document production was deemed incorrect; plaintiffs can produce documents to counter the defendant's claims under the cited rules.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner had the right to produce additional documents after the written statement was filed, addressing procedural requirements under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that Order XI Rule 5 permits document production in response to a case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing the plaint, emphasizing that this right persists even after a written statement is filed.
Result: Petition allowed; the order dated 19.06.2025 was quashed, granting permission for document production.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction and proceedings initiation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's argument on document production rights. (Para 6) |
| 4. respondent's contention against document production. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's detailed observations and reasoning. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. interplay of procedural rules under cpc. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 7. final order of the court. (Para 12) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2025 by which an application in I.A.No.8 comes to be rejected seeking production of certain documents.
2. Heard Mr.Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is the plaintiff, the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiff institutes Com.O.S.No.107 of 2024 before the Jurisdictional Commercial Court, seeking declaration and damages. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter or the claim before the concerned court by the plaintiff or the defence of the defendant.
4. On 23.07.2024, after the institution of the suit, the respondent files a written statement along with a counter claim. The plaintiff then files his written statement to the counter claim on 20.11.2024. When things stood thus, it transpires that the concerned court directs the parties to explore the possibilities of a settlement by way of a mediation. Mediation thus begins on 02.12.2024 and ends by a report of failure on 22.02.2025. On four dates later, the matter is adjourned for admission or denial of documents.
5. On 26.03.2025 after about a month of the failure of mediation, the plaintiff prefers an application under Order XI Rule 5 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking production of documents through the I.A.No.8. Objections are filed by the respondent, the defendant. Owing to the objections and considering the nature of the documents sought to be produced, the concerned court rejects the application on 19.06.2025. Rejection of the application is what has driven the plaintiff to this court in subject petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Deepak Bhaskar, would contend that the petitioner had to produce these documents on account of the plea set up by the defendant in the written statement. Though the written statement was filed along with the counter claim and the plaintiff had filed his written statement to the counter claim, that would not take away the right of the petitioner to produce documents in counter, to what was set up as a defence, in the written statement filed to O.S.107 of 2024. He would submit that though the counter claim is an independent suit by itself that would not mean that production of documents in support of the claim setup in the written statement filed to the plaint so registered would be in consonance with law. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by this court in ' JSM COPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BRUNTON DEVELOPERS ', 2025 SCC Online Kar 1215
7. Per contra, the learned counsel Nishant A.V. appearing for the respondent defendant would vehemently refute the submission of the counsel by the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was in possession of those documents that he wants to produce through the subject application. It is his submission that the petitioner has filed his written statement to the counter claim, but failed to produce these documents. Now, long after the written statement is filed by the defendant to O.S.107 of 2024, the application is preferred to cover up the defence that is put up by the defendant before the concerned court. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of 'SUDHIR KUMAR VS. VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR G.B.', (2021) 13 SCC 71, to buttress his submission towards the dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learn
