Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Shukkoor, S/o. Nabeesa and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Asharaf, S/o. Abdul Rahiman and Ors. – Respondents
OP(C) No. 1706 Of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rule 14 - Application for production of documents - Dismissal of application by Trial Court challenged - Plaintiffs sought production of passports and school certificates from defendants to establish title in partition suit - Court found documents relevant for determining questions involved in the suit, and the dismissal was not justified. (Paras 2 , 14 , 16 )
(B) Judicial discretion - The court has the discretion to order production of documents that are relevant to the matter in question, and this discretion must be exercised judiciously. (Paras 10 , 12 )
(C) Importance of documents in partition suits - Documents sought must relate directly to the title of the property in dispute, and the court must consider their relevance before dismissing requests for production. (Paras 13 , 14 )
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of property originally belonging to their ancestor, seeking documents from defendants who claimed familial relation. The application for document production was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was set aside as the documents were deemed relevant for the determination of property title.
Issues: The main issue was whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary for establishing the title in the partition suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the documents sought were relevant and that the Trial Court's dismissal lacked justification, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of document relevance in partition suits.
Result: The order dated 20.07.2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 is set aside; I.A.No.4/2021 is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The challenge in this Original Petition is to an order dismissing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S.No.61/2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Perumbavoor.
2. The suit was instituted for partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to one Sri.Mummy Anthruman, the father of plaintiff No.1. Respondent Nos. 1,3,7 and 8/ defendant Nos.1, 3, 7 and 8 are the great grandchildren of Sri.Mummy Anthruman.
3. Defendant Nos.3,7 and 8 pleaded in the written statement that Sri.Mummy Anthruman is their father.
4. The petitioners filed I.A.No.4/2021 seeking a direction to defendant Nos. 3, 7 & 8 to produce their Passports and school certificates. The Court below dismissed the application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the determination of the questions involved in the suit.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners failed to establish that the production of the documents is expedient, just and relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi and Another v. K.V.Paulose and Another (2013 (1) KHC 580)
9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Thundiyil Abdurahiman v. Asharaf Kalapeedikayil ( 2019 (1) KHC 593 : AIR 2020 NOC 208 )
10. Order XI Rule 14 reads thus:-
“14. Production of documents - It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.”
11. The Code permits the Court to order production of documents, if the Court shall think right. The words “as the Court shall think right” contained in Order XI Rule 14 empowers the Court to exercise its discretion in a wider manner. Order XI Rule 14 permits the Court to order production of documents relating to any matter in question. The expression “matter in question” has been constructed by judicial pronouncements as a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about which such dispute arises. (Vide:- Padmanabhan v.Kannan, (1980 KHC 7) and Anthoyokkya Viswasa Samrakshana Samithi and Another v. K.V.Paulose and Another (2013 (1) KHC 580)
12. In a suit for partition, title is a question or issue in dispute. On the scope of Order XI Rule 14, in Basanagouda v. Dr.S.B.Amarkhed and Others ( 1992 KHC 844 : AIR 1992 SC 1163 ), in Paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held thus:-
“7. The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided the Court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The Court also has been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Therefore, the power to order production of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. These are relevant considerations which the Court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the election petition……”
13. Following Basanagouda, this Court in Thundiyil Abdurahiman (supra), observed that Order XI Rule 14 of the Code does not attach to a party an absolute right to insist for production of a document in the possession of the adverse party. The Court held that the right of the applican
The court emphasized that the production of documents relevant to the title in a partition suit must be considered judiciously, and unjust dismissal of such requests is not permissible.
The court reaffirmed that the discretion to allow late document production should prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
The court reinforced that parties must have a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in cases of partition claims involving ancestral property.
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
Due diligence must be established for producing additional evidence in appellate proceedings; the failure to show diligence results in application rejection.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
