Karnataka High Court
M/S Entrust Security And Allied ... vs National Technical Reserach ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8085
WP No. 8306 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8306 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S ENTRUST SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.55,
1ST FLOOR,
OPPOSITE TO KAMMANAHALLI CHURCH,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560084
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.COL (RETD) N.P.C. PILLAI
2. COL. N.P.C PILLAI, S M (RETD)
S/O LATE SRI K.N.A. PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT J-737, SENA VIHAR,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560043.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI.K. ARUM KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING
CHANDANA FOR SMT. SANJANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
BM
Location:
High Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESERACH
ORGANIZATION (NTRO)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA J-16,
HAUZ KHAZ ROAD,
SRI. AUROBINDO MARG,
NEW DELHI-110016
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8085
WP No. 8306 of 2024
HC-KAR
NEW DELHI-110011.
3. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE,
RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI-110011.
4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE PRIME MINISTER
PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK,
RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI-110011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,R2,R3 & R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02/06/2023 PASSED BY THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 39) IN OS NO. 5361 OF 2011
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5361/2011 is directed against the impugned order passed on Item No.11, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for a direction to the defendants to produce the wage revisions announced by the Directorate General of Resettlement, New Delhi and letter dated 04.04.2007 was rejected by the trial Court.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8085 WP No. 8306 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs having instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for recovery of money, which is being contested by the respondents-defendants. After completion of evidence, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking a direction to the defendants to produce the following documents:
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XI RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum of facts it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call upon the Defendants to PRODUCE the following document in the interests of justice and equity.
1. The wage revisions announced by the Director General of Resettlement, New Delhi during the period between 10.11.2006 and 1.08.2009.
2. The letter DGR letter No. F.12(142)/02/MW/Lab/1016 dated 04 April, 2007.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8085 WP No. 8306 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. In their objections, the respondents admitted that they had custody and possession of the said documents but contended that the same were not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy. The said objection put forth by the respondents was accepted by the trial Court, which proceeded to reject the application by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the proof, relevance, probative value etc., of the documents sought to be produced would lie in the realm of appreciation of evidence at the time of final disposal of the suit and so long as the respondents admitted that they had custody and possession of the documents, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondents if they are directed to produce the said documents by keeping open the question of relevance, proof, probative value etc., to be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. The trial Court also failed to consider and appreciate that the documents sought to be directed to be produced by the respondents are extremely relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8085 WP No. 8306 of 2024 HC-KAR the issues in controversy between the parties as can be seen from the pleadings of the parties and averments made in the memorandum of facts in support of the application.
6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.11 has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 02.06.2023 on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.5361/2011 on the file of the XXXVIII ACC & SJ, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.
iii) I.A.No.11 under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed.
iv) The respondents are directed to produce the aforesaid documents sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs in I.A.No.11 on the next date of hearing of the suit before the trial Court i.e., on 18.04.2026.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8085 WP No. 8306 of 2024 HC-KAR
v) Upon the respondents producing the said document as stated supra, the trial Court shall permit both parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, if any, and dispose of the suit within a period of 3 months from 18.04.2026.
vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8