Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
Sikander Singh - Appellant
Versus
Mander Singh - Respondent
CW / 17970 / 2024
Decided On : 04-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 11 Rules 12, 13, and 14 - Writ petition challenging the order of trial court rejecting application for production of documents - The court upheld the trial court's finding that the documents sought were not in the possession of the respondent-plaintiff. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 13)
(B) Discovery of Documents - Court's authority to order production of documents is contingent upon possession by the party against whom the order is made. The court ruled that the absence of possession negates the obligation to produce documents. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Affidavit Requirement - The court clarified that an affidavit under Order XI Rule 13 is only required when an order under Order XI Rule 12 has been made, which was not the case here. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration as the first-class successor of a deceased individual, claiming rights based on an adoption deed. The petitioners sought to compel the respondent to produce the adoption deed and a gun license, which the trial court denied, stating the respondent did not possess these documents.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the application was affirmed, as the respondent-plaintiff denied possession of the requested documents.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for document production and the applicability of affidavit requirements under the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the trial court acted correctly in ruling that the respondent-plaintiff could not be compelled to produce documents he did not possess, and clarified the procedural requirements of the CPC regarding document discovery.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order :
1. The instant writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annex.10) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikaranpur (‘learned trial court’) in Civil Misc. Case No.26/2024 (Annex.2), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC has been rejected.
2. The instant writ has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 (P/10) passed by the Senior Civil, Judge, Srikaranpur, in Civil Misc case no. 26/24 CIS no. 26/2024 (Mander Singh vs. Sikaner Singh & ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The application dated 02.11.2023 (P/8) filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 12, 14 read with Section 151 of CPC may kindly be allowed and the respondent-plaintiff Mander Singh be directed LO produce the original adoption deed dated 15.04.1966 and gun license no. 246 dated 21.07.1983, which is in his possession before the learned trail court.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Writ petition filed petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent- plaintiff filed a civil suit (Annex.2) for declaration of respondent- plaintiff as the first class successor of Late Mukhtyar Singh. The petitioners-defendants, the children of Late Mukhtyar Singh, filed written statement (Annex.3) stating inter alia that the respondent- plaintiff is adopted son of Mr. Gurdayal Singh and an adoption deed dated 05.04.1966 was executed in this behalf. In the written statement (Annex.3) it was also stated that a succession certificate dated 02.12.1988 was issued in the name of the petitioners therefore the respondent-plaintiff has no right in the property of by Late Mukhtyar Singh. Subsequently, the petitioner no.1 (Mr. Sikandar Singh) moved an application (Annex.8) under Order XI Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff be directed to place on record the adoption deed dated 05.04.1966 (Annex.1) and the gun license no.246 dated 21.07.1983 which is in possession of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned trial court vide order dated 10.09.2024 (Annex.10) dismissed the application (Annex.8) while holding that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are not in the possession of respondent-plaintiff and therefore, the respondent-plaintiff cannot be directed to produce the said documents. Aggrieved by the same the instant writ has been filed by the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent-plaintiff purchased lands vide sale deeds dated 14.06.1968 (Annex.11) and 24.04.1997 (Annex.12) and in these sale deeds the name of the respondent-plaintiff has been written as Mr. Mander Singh adopted son of Mr. Gurdayal Singh thus, the respondent-plaintiff himself admitted that he is adopted son of Mr. Gurdayal Singh. He also submits that late Mr. Mukhtyar Singh executed his will dated 11.12.1986 (Annex.14), in which he disclosed that the respondent-plaintiff (Mr. Mander Singh) was given in adoption to Mr. Gurdayal Singh. He also submits that Mr. Sucharan Singh and Late Mr. Mukhtyar Singh moved an application dated 12..04.1983 (Annex.15) for exchange of land and in response to this application the respondent-plaintiff filed the reply dated 06.09.1983 (Annex.15) and mentioned himself as the adopted son of Mr. Gurdayal Singh. He also submits that Mr. Gurdayal Singh (adopted father of the respondent-plaintiff) died on 03.02.2005 and the respondent-plaintiff got a condolence message (Annex.16) published in a newspaper, in which the respondent-plainti
The court affirmed that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in their possession, clarifying the procedural requirements for document discovery under the Code of Civil Procedure.
An adoption deed, once registered, is presumed valid under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act unless disproved, and courts must provide reasons for any conclusions drawn against its....
The court has discretion to allow late submission of documents if necessary for justice, despite prior availability of photocopies.
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
Compliance with mandatory requirements for summoning documents from a public officer and the limitations of Order XVI, Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC.
Summoning public officers under Order XVI, Rule 1 of CPC cannot be invoked by private parties without adducing proper and relevant evidence to prove their case.
The court recognized the necessity to resolve the validity of the adoption deed despite earlier failures to present competent evidence, underscoring the importance of proving authenticity in 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....
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
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
