##PAGE1##

- 1 -

WP No. 15858 of 2025

Reserved on : 06.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 15858 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. RAO BAHADUR B. P. ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR C.I.E.'S PUBLIC CHARITIES,

A CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.59,

MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE -560005,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ASHRITHA A HATTANGADI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADYUMNA L NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE AND

SRI MAYANK HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M. V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S

1. FAZIULLAH MEKHRI ALIAS FAZAL MEKHRI Location: High Court of AGE UNKNOWN, S/O MR. MEKTHRI Karnataka

AT No.6, BRIDGE ROAD, BANGALORE -560001.

2. ENAYETH BROTHERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1882, HAVING OFFICE AT No.6,

BIRDGE ROAD, BANGALORE -560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

MR. FAZIULLAH MEKHRI …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

WP No. 15858 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/03/2025 IN OS 1691 OF 2023 BEFORE THE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE

COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Pradyumna L. Narasimha and Sri Mayank

Hebbar, learned counsels appearing for Sri M.V. Sundararaman, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Madhukar

Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No.1691/2023 seeking a direction to the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property. The Trial Court framed issues, and Issue No.8 pertains to the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff, particularly questioning the authority of Dr. B.A. Anantharamu and Mrs. Ashritha A. Hattangaddi to file

the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking a direction to the defendants to make discovery on oath of the

- 3 -

WP No. 15858 of 2025

documents in their possession. The defendants filed their objections. The Trial Court, by order dated 24.03.2025, rejected the application, recording that the defendants have denied the authority of the plaintiffs as well as the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship between them. Therefore, it

held that production of the documents cannot be ordered.

3.1 The Trial Court further observed that when a specific issue regarding the capacity of the plaintiff to file the suit is treated as a preliminary issue and evidence is being recorded, unless the authority of the plaintiff to maintain the suit is resolved, production of the documents cannot be directed.

Accordingly, the application was rejected.

4. Sri Pradyumna L. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–Trust/plaintiff, submits that the suit has been instituted with proper authority. It is further submitted that, in view of the objections filed by the respondents/defendants disputing the authority of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has framed an issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and

the authority of the plaintiff.

4.1 Learned counsel submits that there were multiple correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendants,

- 4 -

WP No. 15858 of 2025

including communications relating to payment of rent. All such communications and the relevant bank statements are in the possession of the defendants. Hence, a direction to make discovery of the said documents was necessary. It is further submitted that discovery of the documents referred to in the application is essential for adjudication of the preliminary issue. 5. Per contra, Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the Trust is gov