THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COMM.O.S.NO.8225/2012 ON THE FILE OF LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.25.2.2020 IN O.S.8225/12 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.IV ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated25.02.2020 passed in Comm. O.S.No.8225/2012 by LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-84) (for short 'the Trial Court')

2. Sri.S.R.Kamalacharana., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for recovery of money against respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking for production of document from respondent No.2-Bank, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioners’ claims before the trial Court are specific that respondents No.1 and 2 colluded with each other and caused loss to the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 being the employee of the petitioner-Company, during the course of operations created some documents and ensured that a double payment is made to the vendors. However, insofar as the second payment to the vendor is concerned, he has created fake accounts with the respondent No.2- Bank and withdrew the money for himself. In view of the specific assertion in the plaint, the petitioner intends to prove before the trial Court as to whether the respondent No.2-Bank has followed the required norms while opening account, operating account and releasing the amount in favour of respondent No.1. However, the trial Court rejected the application for production of documents solely on the ground that the respondent No.2-Bank has taken stand that they do not possess the original documents, and they have handed over the same to the Investigation Officer in Crime No.92/2012. It is also submitted that the trial Court has failed to apply its mind with regard to the purpose of the documents sought and failed to understand the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, resulting in rejection of the application. It is contended that the Jurisdictional Police in response to the orders of the trial Court filed a communication dated 17.11.2020 which is produced at Annexure-J to the petition. The said document clearly indicates that on verification the Police Station as well as the Jurisdictional Court have answered stating that the documents sought in IA No.IV are not available with them and in view of the said stand of the police, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basanagouda vs. S.B.Amarkhed and Ors., in MANU/SC/0495/992 and seeks to allow the writ petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.M.J.Alva., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Bank supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has categorically recorded the reason that respondent No.2-Bank does not possess the original documents. It is submitted that the objections filed by respondent No.2 itself make it clear that the original documents sought by the petitioner are handed over to the Jurisdictional Police for the purpose of investigation, which is evident from the affidavits filed by Executive Director of the respondent No.2-Bank. It is further submitted that the affidavit is enclosed with a notice dated 18.09.2012 sent by the Police to the Bank directing them to produce certain documents referred to in the notice. In reply to the same notice, Bank has sent documents sought as per Annexure-R3 along with the communic