Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(J&K) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SINDHU SHARMA, J.
Rajan Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Gupta – Respondent
CM(M) No. 36 Of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Kohli.
For the Respondent: Mr. Akash Gupta.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article-227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of justice. The judgment also clarified the procedural requirements for discovery and production of documents under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 of CPC.

Headnote:
Article-227 - Civil Suit - Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 CPC - [Order-VII Rule-14 CPC, Article-227 of Constitution of India] - The court discussed the nature and scope of its jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and the principles for invoking jurisdiction under Article-227. It also highlighted the provisions of Order-VII Rule-14 CPC, Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 of CPC, and their interpretation in the context of discovery and production of documents in a civil suit.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, challenging the validity of a WILL and seeking various reliefs. The defendant filed an application for production of documents, alleging that some documents were forged. The Trial Court allowed the application, directing the plaintiff to produce the original documents relied upon.
Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the nature and scope of its jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and the principles for invoking such jurisdiction. It also interpreted the provisions of Order-VII Rule-14 CPC, Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 of CPC, and held that the Trial Court's order for production of documents was within its jurisdiction and did not result in a serious miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's order for production of documents was in accordance with the procedural requirements and whether it warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the power under Article-227 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of justice. It also clarified the procedural requirements for discovery and production of documents under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 of CPC.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Trial Court's order for production of documents was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed under Article-227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Court of City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 CPC had been allowed.

2. A civil suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) declaring the WILL executed by the late father of the parties namely Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta on 19.07.2019 and registered on same day before the Court of Ld. Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu as illegal, inoperative, null and void, and nonest in the eyes of law; with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction; and further consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff had enclosed Annexures-A to E with the suit which were photocopies of memo of family arrangement, lease deed, business conducting agreement, Will and Family settlement.

3. Thereafter an application under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff along with Annexure-A to E which contains amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2020. Pursuant to the order of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed amended plaint for declaration declaring the WILL executed by the late father of the parties namely Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta on 19.07.2019 and registered on the same day before the Court of Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu as illegal, inoperative, null & void and nonest in the eyes of law. Along with the suit for declaration declaring that the WILL DEED dated 24.09.2009 is the first WILL of Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta and further declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of M/s Ganesh Cloth House along with its assets and double story building and also the lessee of shop measuring 29”x63” with open area of 29”x47’ situated within the Apsra Theatre Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and further declaration that plaintiff is entitled to the Business Conducting Charges from M/s Biba Apparels and also filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from claiming any right over the properties of Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta as detailed in the suit as well as in the impugned WILL DEED dated 19.07.2019 and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the functioning/working of M/s Apsra Theatre/Multiplex as well as to cause interference in the rest of House bearing No. 17 B/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu except two rooms given to him in terms of Family Settlement dated 27.03.2006.

4. With the amended plaint, the plaintiff filed Annexures-A to L which include photocopies of memo of family arrangement, license deed, lease deed, business conducting agreement, conducting agreement between Krishan Kumar Gupta and adlabs films Ltd, memo of understanding profit and loss account of Apsra Theatre, Jammu for the year ending on 31.03.2013, receipt memo of Auqaf Islamia Jammu, memorandum of understanding, will dated 19.07.2019, Will dated 24.09.2009 and family settlement deed respectively.

5. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) filed an application under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of the documents. The contention of the respondent was that the additional documents were enclosed with the amended plaint and the nature of some of the documents as annexures in original plaint and subsequently those very annexures in the amended plaint have been changed by the plaintiff in the amended plaint. It is submitted that these documents appear to be forged, fabricated, managed and manufactured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff relies on these documents in the suit, reliance was placed on annexure-C&E with the original plaint and D&L with the amended plaint and since the very execution of these documents is under cloud, therefore, before filing his written statement and putting up his defence