1. Petitioner sought production of documents under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction regarding construction of a water pond. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Kishna Ram S/o. Sh. Surja Ram - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Through the Dist. Collector Bikaner Raj. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21602 of 2026
Decided On : 07-09-2026
Important Points
Discovery and production of documents under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC is discretionary and cannot be used to shift the evidentiary burden or obtain public documents reasonably accessible via the RTI Act, unless the original is required for authenticating signatures or similar purposes.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 - Discovery and production of documents - Power is discretionary and must be exercised based on the relevance and necessity of the documents, as well as the circumstances and efforts made by the party to obtain them (Paras 5, 5.1).
(B) Public documents and Right to Information Act, 2005 - Where documents are public and capable of being obtained through the Right to Information Act, a party cannot typically seek production under Order XI Rule 12 CPC unless production of the original is essential to resolve disputes regarding signatures or similar issues where a certified copy would not serve justice (Para 5.2).
(C) Burden of proof - A party seeking relief is duty-bound to collect evidence in its favor; discovery provisions cannot be utilized to compel the opposing party to produce evidence against themselves or to shift the evidentiary burden (Paras 5.1, 5.4).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the altered location of a sanctioned water pond construction on their land. An application was filed under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC seeking the production of official records, including the sanction order, survey sheet, and plan, which were in the custody of the respondent-department. The trial court rejected the application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sought-after documents were public records of the respondent-department. Although it was alleged that an application under the Right to Information Act had been rejected, no proof of such refusal was placed on record.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for production of public documents under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC when such documents were reasonably accessible via the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Discovery and production mechanisms are intended to facilitate fair adjudication but cannot be invoked merely for convenience or to collect evidence for foundational facts where the burden of proof lies with the applicant. The processes of the court cannot be used as a tool for indolent litigants to avoid accessing documents available in the public domain through established legal mechanisms.
Result: Writ petition dismissed. Impugned order upheld.
(B) Public documents and Right to Information Act, 2005 - Where documents are public and capable of being obtained through the Right to Information Act, a party cannot typically seek production under Order XI Rule 12 CPC unless production of the original is essential to resolve disputes regarding signatures or similar issues where a certified copy would not serve justice (Para 5.2).
(C) Burden of proof - A party seeking relief is duty-bound to collect evidence in its favor; discovery provisions cannot be utilized to compel the opposing party to produce evidence against themselves or to shift the evidentiary burden (Paras 5.1, 5.4).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the altered location of a sanctioned water pond construction on their land. An application was filed under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC seeking the production of official records, including the sanction order, survey sheet, and plan, which were in the custody of the respondent-department. The trial court rejected the application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sought-after documents were public records of the respondent-department. Although it was alleged that an application under the Right to Information Act had been rejected, no proof of such refusal was placed on record.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for production of public documents under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC when such documents were reasonably accessible via the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Discovery and production mechanisms are intended to facilitate fair adjudication but cannot be invoked merely for convenience or to collect evidence for foundational facts where the burden of proof lies with the applicant. The processes of the court cannot be used as a tool for indolent litigants to avoid accessing documents available in the public domain through established legal mechanisms.
Result: Writ petition dismissed. Impugned order upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Singh.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Singh.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued documents were relevant and their non-production would frustrate the suit; respondent opposed, and the trial court rejected the application. (Para 3 )
3. Court upheld trial court's rejection, noting documents were public records accessible via RTI and petitioner failed to show reasonable efforts or exceptional circumstances. (Para 5 )
4. Writ petition dismissed; impugned order rejecting the application under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 CPC upheld. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What is the scope of power under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC for discovery and production of documents?
It is a discretionary power to secure material documents. It cannot be invoked merely for convenience, especially when documents are otherwise accessible to the applicant. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
Sanjeet Purohit, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.07.2026, whereby learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Kolayat, District Bikaner (“learned Trial Court”) rejected the application filed by petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking production of certain documents alleged to be in custody of respondent – department.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent – department had sanctioned the construction of a water pond (“diggi”) upon the land of petitioner; however, the location was subsequently changed and construction was started at a different site. Challenging said action, petitioner filed the suit in question before learned Trial Court seeking permanent injunction.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the relevant documents, including the sanction order, the Chak Plan and the survey sheet, are in the custody of respondent – department, and the application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC was filed, seeking production of the same; however, the same was rejected by learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.07.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said application has wrongly been rejected by learned Trial Court. According to learned counsel, documents sought to be produced are highly relevant and germane for the proper and complete adjudication of the suit and that the dismissal of the application in respect thereof has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel submits that if said documents are not directed to be produced, the very purpose of filing the suit would get frustrated.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
5. Provisions contained in Rules 12 and 14 of Order XI CPC govern, respectively, discovery and production of documents which are in the possession or power of the opposite party and relate to a matter in question in the suit. The power conferred upon the Court under said provisions is discretionary and is required to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the relevance and necessity of the documents sought and the circumstances in which their discovery or production is sought.
5.1 In the context of the matter at hand, to understand the principles governing the exercise of such discretion, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Omkar Nath v. District Judge , 2013 SCC OnLine All 14140, wherein the Hon'ble Court upheld the order passed by learned Court below rejecting an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC filed by the tenant seeking direction to landlord to produce documents relating to other houses alleged to be in landlord’s possession. The Hon'ble Court observed as under: -
"12. Here the petitioner has come up with the case that the landlord has got eight more houses and he be directed to file the documents relating to the title and possession over the said houses. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever tried to find out the details of the title as well as the possession of the houses which are detailed in the application and the petitioner wants to shift the burden of producing the papers on the landlord. I am of the view that the provisions contained, either under Order XI, Rule 12 of the C.P.C. or Rule 23 of the Rules, speaks about the power of Court directing the particular party to produce the particular document While exercising this power, either under Order XI, Rule 12 of the C.P.C. or Rule 23 read with Rule 34 of the Rules, the Court must keep in mind that the party praying for discovery/production of a particular document has made its best effort to find out the same and in spite of the best effort, ultimately, failed, or the said document is in possession of the other party, which can only be produced by that party. The Court should also have in mind, while allowin
