Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The challenge in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 vide which the application filed by defendant No.1-petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents has been disposed off.

2. The grievance of the defendant No.1-petitioner in the present case is that there are certain documents at Sr. Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that she has refused to produce the same.

3. Learned counsel for defendant No.1-petitioner has relied upon Union of India Vs. M/s Kanhiya Dhaliwal Developers & Others in CR No.3868 of 2015 decided on 18.12.2015, Onkar Singh Vs. Ravinder Malhotra , 2013 (36) RCR (Civil) 684, Desa Singh through LRs Vs. Sukhraj Kaur & Ors. 2019 (2) PLR 715, Sharvan Kumar Vs. Sumeet Kumar Garg , 2002 (3) PLR 666, The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Prop. Ajit Cotton Ginning Pressing Dall & Steel Rolling Mills, 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 506 to contend that while deciding an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, the Court has to record its satisfaction regarding the necessity and relevance of the documents.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has contended that the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 has already noticed that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was restrained from placing on record documents mentioned at Point Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 without prior permission of the Court and hence there is no ground for interference in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has relied upon Zari Bai Vs. Smt. Sonia & Ors., 2018 (2) PLR 659, Surjit Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2016 (4) Law Herald (P&H) 3550 and Municipal Corporation , Faridabad & Anr. Vs. Dharambir & Ors. 2013 (26) RCR (Civil) 923.

5. Heard.

6. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit with the following prayers :

“Suit for Declaration to the effect that the judgment/decree passed by this Court of Ms. Amandeep Kaur Chauhan, PCS, Civil Judge Junior Division, Gurdaspur, bearing Civil Suit No.540 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007, titled as Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs. General Public” decided on dated 03.12.2011, is illegal, null, void and result of fraud concealment of true facts and has no effects upon the legal rights, title, interest of the plaintiff, and the same is liable to be set aside.

And

Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No.1 Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur not to use the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.510 of 2007 titled as Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs. General Public by the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Amandeep Kaur, PCS, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurdaspur and restraining the defendant No.1 not to alienate the property inherited by her of the estate of Pyara Singh (now deceased) on the basis of judgment decree dated 03.12.2011 in question.”

7. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed herself to being the widow and legal heir of Pyara Singh and that defendant No.1-petitioner by playing fraud with the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and in order to grab the share of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the estate of Pyara Singh filed the case titled as Bachan Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs. General Public [Civil Suit No.540 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007] by proclaiming herself that she was the sole survivor of Pyara Singh and claimed that she was entitled to the movable and immovable property of Pyara Singh. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 challenged the said judgment and decree as being illegal, null and void