Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition challenging an order of the trial court that dismissed an application under Order 13 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) which sought return of Ext. P-15 (the document concerned), a Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., upheld the trial court’s order and stated that only the party who produced the documents before the Court is entitled to seek its return.
In the present case, the petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC seeking return of the document concerned and the trial court dismissed it, holding that since the respondent produced the document concerned, only he and not the petitioner was entitled to seek its return.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order, contending that although Order 13 Rule 9 CPC provided for return to the party who had filed the document, the respondent could seek its return.
The Court referred to Order 13 Rule 9 CPC and stated that the question of return of the document to petitioner would not arise as it was not disputed by him that the document concerned had been placed on record by the respondent.
Thus, the Court upheld the dismissal of the application as it found no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
[K. Lokanath Naidu v. M. Malar Raja, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3006, decided on 5-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Saravana S., Advocate
