Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur vide which the application filed by the plaintiff - respondent No.1 under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 was allowed and the defendant - petitioner was ordered to produce the income tax returns of HUF as also in his personal capacity relating to the Estate of the H.L.H. Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh Mewar along with the Assessment Orders.

2. The defendant - petitioner filed returns in the Income Tax Department in his personal and HUF capacity. Accordingly, an application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 was moved by the plaintiff - respondent seeking to produce the income tax returns as well as the Assessment Orders on the ground that they were relevant, material and necessary for adjudication of the dispute. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2018.

3. While praying for setting aside the said order, it was contended that the trial court has committed material irregularity in passing the said order, inasmuch as, four applications were filed by the same respondent - plaintiff in respect of the returns of the HUF which have since been dismissed and therefore, the present application was not maintainable and was barred by res judicata. Reply has been filed by the plaintiff - respondent. As per the reply, the earlier applications pertained to Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar. He passed away on 02.11.1984 and after his demise, the present petitioner came into possession of the record. The said application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC and not under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC. The court below rejected the said application while holding that under Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC, the plaintiffs has to state the documents which are not in his possession and also state in whose possession or power the documents are available which was missed in the application. The scope and ambit of Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC and that of Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC are altogether different. Under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC, relevance and expediency to produce documents are germane considerations which weigh with courts while making orders and admissibility of documents is not a relevant consideration. In the instant application, plaintiff - non-petitioner No.1 has duly averred the ingredients of Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC and the documents which are exclusively in the power and possession of the defendants and which the plaintiff does not have. Insofar as application dated 01.04.2015 filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC is concerned, it was filed by the plaintiff in view of denial of the defendant - Income Tax Department to provide information/record sought by the plaintiff under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The plaintiff - non-petitioner No.1 had submitted an application under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 before the defendant - Income Tax Department for providing information and record of HUF tax returns filed by Maharana Bhagwat Singh Ji during the financial years 1983-84 and 1984-85. In accordance with Section 8 of the Act of 2005, Income Tax Department sought concurrence of defendant - petitioner for providing the information since the information sought was 'third party' information. The petitioner - defendant refused the request and hence, the information sought by the plaintiff - respondent No.1 was not provided by the Income Tax Department. Hence, application under Order 16 Rule 6 was filed. Here also, the period involved in the said application was 1983-84 and 1984-85.

4. Rejection of the application dated 01.04.2015 by the court below vide order dated 06.04.2015 does not create a bar upon filing of application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC. The 'Karta' and a member of the HUF cannot be a 'third party' and denying the 'Karta' and member of HUF, copy of HUF record is in violation of existing laws.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent further