The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to satisfy itself about the necessity and relevancy of the document before ordering its production, emphasizing the need for the court to act in a judicious manner and record findings in respect of satisfaction and the possession of the document with the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 18.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 read with section 151 CPC for production of original agreement to sell dated 09.03.2013 was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and alleged sale deed dated 09.09.2013 is illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals and the defendant entered into an agreement to sell to purchase the same from the Northern side of the khasra number to the extent of 3 kanals from the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 09.03.2013. From the said land, the plaintiff had already dug out the earth and this fact was also mentioned in the agreement to sell and consequently, a rate was agreed and settled between the parties at Rs. 11,25,000/- for the said land. The date of execution of sale deed was fixed for 09.09.2013. Plaintiff further claimed that he is an illiterate and old person and the defendant has played a fraud upon him by mentioning the khasra No.103//3/2/2/1 in the recital of the sale deed which was never agreed to be sold by the plaintiff. The said khasra number is of more value and more fertile and the defendant illegally and unlawfully got the same incorporated in the sale deed in connivance with deed writer and attesting witnesses. Plaintiff alleged fraud in the aforesaid context.

3. The possession of the suit land was never delivered to the defendant, rather possession of khasra No.103//8/1 was delivered and since then, defendant is in possession of khasra No.103//8/1. The sale deed was claimed to be illegal, null and void and result of fraud.

4. Plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rules 14 and 15 read with section 151 CPC for production of original agreement to sell dated 09.03.2013 on the ground that the document in question is with the defendant and the same was not filed by the defendant along with the written statement. Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 09.03.2013 was relied by the plaintiff by claiming that the original of the same is with the defendant. Production of original agreement to sell was sought.

5. The application was contested by the defendant on the ground that the agreement to sell was executed in respect of 103//3/2/2/1 and sale deed was executed strictly in consonance with agreement to sell. The photocopy as projected by the plaintiff was claimed to be a manipulated document after making alterations in khasra numbers by erasing real khasra numbers. Defendant pleaded that she will lead her evidence and will produce her documents at the relevant stage of her leading evidence and there is no necessity to produce any original document and it was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading his affirmative evidence without taking assistance of the Court.

6. Trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 18.10.2017 by holding that assertion to the effect that the agreement to sell is in possession of the defendant has not been supported by any affidavit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has already availed number of opportunities and it was only on 4th opportunity of leading evidence, the application in question came to be filed. In the plaint itself, plaintiff has not pleaded in any manner that the original agreement to sell is in possession of the defendant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while leading evidence on three initial dates, the plaintiff did not alter a single word in respect of production of original document, rather proceeded to adduce evidence as per his own desire. It was only on 4th opportunity, the plaintiff woke up