The court emphasized that the production of original documents at the appropriate stage is crucial for ensuring justice and preventing delays in legal proceedings.

Order :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed, record of the trial court in present matter be called and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

1. the order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Family Court, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.01/2015 may kindly be set aside and the application (Annexure-5) filed by the defendant-Petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be allowed in toto;

2. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.7 submits that an application has been filed jointly by the petitioner/defendant No.7 and respondents Nos.2 to 7/defendants Nos.1 to 6 under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC on 04.02.2017 with the prayer to direct the respondent No.8/defendant No.8 (Sub Registrar, Sirohi) to place on record the original sale deed, which was presented for registration after payment of requisite stamp duty, however the same was not returned by the respondent No.8. He submits that the learned trial court has framed issue No.4, which is pertaining to the agreement to sale between the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 7, and the onus to prove the said issue has been placed by the learned trial court upon the plaintiffs, while the onus of issue No.6, has been placed upon the present petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that it would be interest of justice that original sale deed is produced and taken on record as the certified copy of the sale deed is already on record. He further submits that though the learned trial court has granted liberty to file application for production of original sale deed at a later stage i.e. at the time of the petitioner/defendant No.7’s evidence if the same is required for adjudication of the lis involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and thus it would be appropriate that the present petitioner cross examines the respondent-plaintiff at this stage itself on the document in question. He further submits that granting a liberty to the petitioner to file application for production of original sale deed at later stage would cause delay in adjudication of the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes and submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order dated 12.09.2024 (Annex-7). He also submits that since the petitioner has been granted the liberty to file appropriate application seeking direction to produce the original sale deed on record, if she desires, no interference to the order impugned is called for.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. This Court finds that the onus of issue no.6 is upon the petitioner-defendant No.7 to prove as to whether the respondents Nos.1 to 6 have executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner and have also handed over the physical possession of the property and whether the registration of the sale deed is to be done then in such case, it would be appropriate that the petitioner is permitted to seek a direction for production of original sale deed at this stage itself, inasmuch as the certified copy of the sale deed is already placed on record. This Court also finds that the matter is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence, therefore, if the original sale deed is brought on record, and petitioner/defendant No.7 cross examines the plaintiff; the same would not cause any prejudice the case of the plaintiff.

6. Accordingly in view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure-7) is quashed and set