Relevance and party involvement in document production under Order 11 Rule 13 CPC.

V.K. Shali, J.

OA No.87/2014

1. This order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the defendants/appellants under Chapter II Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 against the order dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Joint Registrar by virtue of which the learned Joint Registrar has directed the defendant No.2 to produce on affidavit all the three documents as prescribed in Form No.5 of Appendix C under Order 11 Rule 13 CPC within a period of four weeks, the details of which are given by the respondent/plaintiff in the application. The said three documents are:

i) Shareholding pattern of M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Private Limited;

ii) Shareholding pattern in the M/s Nidas Estate Private Limited; and

iii) The production of the alleged lease deed/ document pursuant to which you claim that the M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Private Limited is in possession of Western Portion of the shop in question.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the appellants/defendants making the defendant No.2, an individual, Mrs. Adarsh Gill, a party. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had entered into an unregistered agreement of lease dated 21.11.1999 with the erstwhile owner, Smt.Neeta Mehra, with respect to 45% of the area of the suit property baring Plot No.10, Block-172, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi – 110003 which was consisting of Eastern Shop, an office block, a mezzanine over the office block, a toilet, courtyard at the back and the concerned verandah with a display window more particularly referred as RED portion in the site plan annexed to the plaint and referred to as Eastern part of the ground floor. The appellant/defendant No.1 was alleged to have been holding the premises unauthorizedly after expiry of the period of lease of eleven years and eleven months. It was alleged that initially the rent was Rs.2650/- per month which was enhanced by 10% every three years and after 17.11.2008, the rent of the premises in question was Rs.3527 and since the rent was more than Rs.3,500/-, therefore, they were not protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. With regard to the western portion of the premises in question, more particularly shown in Yellow in the plaint, it was alleged that the same was in the unauthorized occupation of the defendants as a trespasser with respect to which a decree of possession was sought apart from a decree of damages. The defendants filed the written statement and admitted being a tenant in respect of the eastern portion of the premises in question. The rent was stated to be initially Rs.2650/-. It was denied that the rent was liable to be increased or that they were in arrears of rent. However, so far as the eastern portion of the premises in question is concerned, a judgment on the basis of the admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was passed by this court, which is stated to be under appeal and is not in any way an issue in the present appeal. What is in issue is that the defendants had taken a specific plea in para 12 of the written statement that M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Private Limited was the tenant under the erstwhile owner of the suit property. However, they had occupied the premises after removal of the wall separating the eastern portion from the western portion of the premises in question with the consent of the M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Private Limited and Mrs.Neeta Mehra who is the erstwhile owner. The suit was contested and the issues are yet to be framed in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed IA No.20768/2012 under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking production of the following documents:

i) Shareholding pattern of M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Private Limited;

ii) Shareholding pattern in the M/s Nidas Estate Private Limited; and

iii) The production of the alleged lease deed/document pursuant to which you claim that the M/s Ramesh Kumar Overseas Priv