Karnataka High Court
WP/26622/2026 of SMT S JAYANTHI Vs M/S CANARA BANK on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010580152026 NC: 2026:KHC:47729 WP No. 26622 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26622 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S.JAYANTHI W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 46
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26622 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S.JAYANTHI
W/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, KATHA NO.1,
8TH MAIN, SUBRAMANAYAPURA
UTTARAHALI,
BENGALURU-560 061
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S CANARA BANK
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BRANCH,
181, 1ST MAIN,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, RAJAJINAGAR,
1ST PLAINTIFF
BENGALORE-560 086,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER
2.
SMT. H.B. GOWRAMMA,
W/O SRI RAMA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT 5317, MIG PLOTS,
NADHINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 096
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23-07-2026 INO.S.NO.3969/2021
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
ON I.A.NO.V PASSED BY THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE- F AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW 1.A. NO. V FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 R/W SECTION151 OF
CPC, IN O.S. NO. 3969/2021 AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.V in O.S.No.3969/2021 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court.
2. The respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.3969/2021 for recovery of the amount. In the suit, defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.V under Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC to direct the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Uttarahalli Branch, to produce the original cheque bearing No.628797, dated 01.03.2017, for Rs.4,90,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Mahalakshminagar Branch, as this document is relevant to adjudicate the controversy between the parties. That application was rejected by the trial Court.
HC-KAR
3. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the facts regarding the issuance of the cheque and its encashment are admitted by the defendant in the written statement and even in the cross- examination of PW.1. Under these circumstances, scrutiny or examination of the original cheque is not required, and the application was accordingly prayed to be rejected. Further, during the cross-examination, both defendants admitted that the amount had been credited to the account of defendant No.2. In such circumstances, summoning the original cheque is not required. It was observed that even if the original cheque is available before the Court, it does not matter, as the plaintiff has already produced a certified copy of the cheque and the issuance of the said cheque and its encashment are admitted. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, summoning the Branch Manager to present the said cheque before the Court is necessary. The Court, without considering any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, rejected the
HC-KAR
application. It is submitted that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the application needs to be allowed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. When the admitted facts need not be proved, the issuance of the cheque and its encashment are admitted facts. In those circumstances, the question of summoning the Branch Manager to produce the original cheque would not arise. The trial Court had rightly considered the matter and passed the order. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38