Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1905
2012 (1) PLR 229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Managing Committee, SA Jain College, Ambala and anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Dera Baba Surdass and ors.- Respondents
Civil Revision No. 6278 of 2011(O&M)
Decided on: 02.11.2011
Mr. R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
The central legal point established is that parties seeking production of documents must clearly establish the timing of their knowledge of the documents and the necessity for their production, in accordance with the procedural requirements under the CPC.
Headnote:
CPC - Production of Documents - Order 11 Rule 14, Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 - Ration card, Judgment and Decree - [CPC - Order 11 Rule 14, Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151]
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and Order 18 Rule 17 seeking production of documents including ration cards and a judgment and decree. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish the timing of their knowledge of the documents and the necessity for their production. It held that the trial court was justified in declining the prayer for production of documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants were entitled to the production of specific documents under the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for parties to clearly establish when they became aware of the documents and the necessity for their production. It also highlighted the procedural requirements under the CPC for the production of documents.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to decline the prayer for production of documents.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
CM Nos.25905-06 -CII of 2011
These are the applications for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-3 to P-5 and seeking permission to place the same on record.
Miscellaneous applications are allowed. The petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-3 to P-5. Annexures P-3 to P-5 are taken on record.
CR No 6278 of 2011
Dera Baba Surdass through its Mehant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that a number of sale deeds mentioned in the heading of the plaint are illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction, and are a result of fraud and not binding upon him.
2. The said suit has been resisted by the defendants. They have defended the sale deeds, the validity of which has been questioned by the plaintiff.
3. After the evidence of the plaintiff was over and the defendants had entered upon their evidence, an application had been filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for directing the plaintiff to produce some documents.
The documents sought to be produced are as under:-
“1- Ration card No.980316, holder's name Dharam Dass, consumer no.506097 of H.No.1229, Sector 19/5, Ward No.4, Kalal Majri, Ambala City.
2-Ration Card of Dinesh Dass s/o Dharm Dass others i.e. plaintiff of village Harpalan, Dera Kheer Ka Khera, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab),code no.64, Srl. No.072284 issued by Assistant Food & Supply Officers, village Ghanour, District Patiala (Punjab) and
3-A copy of judgment and decree in case titled Dharam Dass chela Mansa Dass Udasi Sadh r/o Dera Kheer Ka Khera of village Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) v. Didar Dass @ Didarpuri s/o Shri Chaman Puri Gosain Sadhu of village Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) of civil Appeal No.1471 of 1991, decided on 16.01.1993 by Sh. S.S. Grewal, Addl. District Judge, Patiala.”
4. PW-4 Devender Dass i.e. plaintiff has also been prayed to be recalled for further cross-examination with reference to the aforesaid documents.
5. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff claiming that the same is a delaying tactic on the part of the defendants. It is further claimed that the suit is fixed for evidence of the defendants and they want to prove their case through the plaintiff. The application was consequently prayed to be dismissed.
6. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been brought by some of the defendants.
7. I have heard Shri R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the documents were not in the knowledge of the petitioners when the plaintiff appeared in the witness box. According to him, the plaintiff has claimed himself to be Chela of different persons in different proceedings as well as in different ration cards. He has further submitted that the documents could be sought to be produced from the opposite party at any time. According to him, the court was required to conduct an inquiry and to arrive at a finding as to whether the parties were in possession of the documents. In this regard, he has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Bhagwani Devi Mohata Hospital v. ADJ Rajgarh and another 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 542 and of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Murtaza Moosavi v. Hemendra V. Shah & Anr. 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 514. According to him, learned trial court has not taken care of this aspect of the matter and has proceeded to dismiss the application in haste.
9. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box and he was fully cross-examined on behalf of the defendants. He was not questioned on the given aspects. If the same were so relevant, he should have been questioned him on these aspects at that time. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page no.27
