A party cannot file an application for the production of documents if they have access to the documents through other means, such as obtaining certified copies or using the Right to Information Act.

JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner who was the defendant in the trial court is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.2/2019 in O.S.No.25336/2014 by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, rejecting the said I.A.No.2/2019 filed under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to produce certain documents numbering about 17 as per the said application.

2. The suit in O.S.No.25336/2014 has been filed by the father and brother of the petitioner seeking for ejectment and possession of the suit schedule property.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has contributed his funds for the purpose of construction of the second floor, in which, he is presently residing and possessed, and the suit is also related to the said second floor, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.2/2019 contending that the documents listed in the said application are essential for adjudicating the case. The said documents are in the possession and in the power of respondent No.2 and are related to the matter in issue in the suit.

4. The said application came to be opposed by the respondents herein/the plaintiffs therein contending that the documents are not at all relevant to adjudicate the subject matter of the said suit which is one for eviction and possession, the application was filed only to protract the proceedings.

5. Accepting the said objections, the trial Court vide its order dated 08.11.2019 has rejected the said application holding that the main defence of the petitioner was that he had contributed his funds towards the construction of the second floor and therefore ought not to be evicted. The production of the documents which have been sought for are relating to the income tax, plan sanction, etc., would not in any manner establish the contribution made by the petitioner for the construction of the second floor. Therefore, the trial Court being of the opinion that the petitioner was unable to establish the relevancy of the documents and has dismissed the application.

6. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the said order contending that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application since the documents have relevancy in the matter since they touch upon the schedule property and the construction put up thereof.

7. Having considered the submission made by Sri Kiran S. Rozario, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and having perused the application in I.A.No.2/2019, it is seen that the documents can be classified into three sets, as follows:

7.1. The financial details relating to respondent No.2

7.2. The registered documents being gifted vide gift deed executed in favor of the respondent No.2 by respondent No.1

7.3. The sanction plan pertaining to the suit schedule property.

8. The first set of the documents namely, the financial details/statements pertaining to respondent No.2 would not have any relevancy in the matter to establish the contribution made by the petitioner for construction of the second floor or otherwise. It is for the petitioner to establish by cogent independent evidence about his contribution, the financial details of the respondents would not in any manner help the petitioner to prove the petitioner's contribution, which is the contention taken up by the petitioner in his written statement before the trial Court.

9. The second classification of document sought for i.e., the gift deed which has been sought for production is one which is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which is a public document. Therefore, the petitioner could have always applied for the certified copy and produce the same as secondary evidence.

10. Though the original Gift Deed and Sanctioned plan would be primary evidence in terms of Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('IE Act', for short), in terms of Section 63 a certified copy of the said do