Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Karnataka Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the First Addl. District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru (Commercial Court) in I.A.No.VII filed in Com.O.S.No.17/2021. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the commercial suit, and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.VII under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking production of certain documents by the defendant. The Commercial Court rejected the application on the ground that the documents sought were not relevant to the suit. The petitioner contended that the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the application at the threshold without considering that the documents were necessary for the just decision of the case. The respondent argued that the documents were not relevant and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court examined the scope of Order XI Rule 12 CPC and held that at the stage of filing an application for production of documents, the court is not required to examine the relevance of the documents; the only requirement is that the documents are in the possession of the opposite party and are necessary for the just decision of the case. The court further held that the Commercial Court had committed an error of law by rejecting the application on the ground of relevance. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Commercial Court to allow I.A.No.VII and permit the petitioner to take steps for production of documents. The court also directed the Commercial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Production of Documents - Order XI Rule 12 CPC - Relevance - At the stage of filing an application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC, the court is not required to examine the relevance of the documents sought to be produced; the only requirement is that the documents are in the possession of the opposite party and are necessary for the just decision of the case. The Commercial Court erred in rejecting the IA on the ground of relevance. (Paras 1-10)
B) Commercial Courts Act - Commercial Suit - Order XI Rule 12 CPC - The provisions of Order XI Rule 12 CPC apply to commercial suits as well. The court must allow production of documents if they are in the possession of the defendant and are necessary for the just decision of the case. (Paras 1-10)
C) Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court can quash an order passed by a subordinate court if it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order rejecting the IA was quashed as it was based on an erroneous view of law. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.VII) filed under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC seeking production of documents by the defendant, on the ground that the documents sought were not relevant to the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Commercial Court in I.A.No.VII in Com.O.S.No.17/2021, and directed the Commercial Court to allow I.A.No.VII and permit the petitioner to take steps for production of documents. The court also directed the Commercial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order XI Rule 12 CPC
- Order XI Rule 14 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Production of documents
- Relevance
- Stage of filing
- Commercial Court
- Writ of Certiorari
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 23
Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Sri. K V Shyamaprasada (for petitioner), Sri. Vijay Kashyap S. (for respondent)
M/s Durgamba Travels by Proprietor Mr. Vinay Ranjan B.K.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Commercial Court rejecting an application for production of documents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (plaintiff in the commercial suit) sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Commercial Court rejecting I.A.No.VII, and to allow the IA.
Filing Reason
The Commercial Court rejected the petitioner's application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC for production of documents by the defendant on the ground that the documents were not relevant to the suit.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court passed the impugned order on 30.09.2021 in I.A.No.VII in Com.O.S.No.17/2021.
Issues
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC on the ground of relevance of the documents sought to be produced.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the application at the threshold without considering that the documents were necessary for the just decision of the case, and that the court was not required to examine relevance at the stage of filing the application.
The respondent argued that the documents sought were not relevant to the suit and that the application was filed belatedly.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of filing an application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC for production of documents, the court is not required to examine the relevance of the documents; the only requirement is that the documents are in the possession of the opposite party and are necessary for the just decision of the case. The Commercial Court committed an error of law by rejecting the application on the ground of relevance.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.VII filed in Com.O.S.No.17/2021 on the file of the First Addl. District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru.
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Commercial Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Commercial Court.
The Commercial Court rejected the application on the ground that the documents sought were not relevant to the suit.
At the stage of filing an application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC, the court is not required to examine the relevance of the documents; the only requirement is that the documents are in the possession of the opposite party and are necessary for the just decision of the case.
The impugned order is quashed. The Commercial Court is directed to allow I.A.No.VII and permit the petitioner to take steps for production of documents.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a commercial suit (Com.O.S.No.17/2021) before the First Addl. District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.VII under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC seeking production of documents by the defendant. The Commercial Court rejected the IA by order dated 30.09.2021. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The writ petition was heard and reserved for orders on 11.09.2025 and pronounced on 25.09.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI Rule 12, Order XI Rule 14, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
