1. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.1.2018 passed by the trial Court whereby application under Order 11 rules 12 and 14 read with section 151 CPC as well as Order 14 rule 2 read with section 151 CPC have been rejected.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent on the ground that suit property belongs to the petitioner and he is the title holder of the suit property because all the suit property was in possession of his ancestor as “Gair Marusi” and he is in continuous possession since Samvat 1997 (year 1940) and therefore he has attained the Bhumiswami right on the basis of long occupation. It was further stated that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property since the year 1940 whereas Government has recognized the said land as a Government land.

3. Learned Government counsel for the State contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the claim made by the petitioner. According to written statement, the land is Government property and the petitioner has interpolated in the revenue record and tried to get the benefit on the basis of policy.

4. It appears that thereafter plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 rule 12 CPC to bring the documents of the defendant before the Court which were in possession of the defendant. Similarly another application was filed under Order 14 rule 02 CPC for deciding the preliminary issues without any evidence. The trial Court rejected the said applications. Therefore, petitioner approached before this Court.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, trial Court erred in passing the impugned order whereby the application under Order 11 rule 12 and 14 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected. It is in the interest of justice to consider written documents of the defendant for effective adjudication. As per policy of Government department, the department is in possession of all the documents. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 is legally obliged to submit the documents. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra s/o Chootelal Gole v. Ram Krishna Sharma, reported in 2011(1) M.P.L.J. 127 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satayapal v. Indore Development Authority, reported in 1995(II) MPWN 67.

6. In respect of the application under Order 14 rule 2 CPC, petitioner submits that questions No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are questions which can be dealt with as preliminary issues and there is no question of any evidence required in the said matter. Therefore, the said issues shall be decided first.

7. Learned Government counsel for the State on the basis of advance notice opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. According to him, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff, therefore, the same cannot be considered. He prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

8. Heard.

9. As far as the application under Order 11 rule 12 CPC is concerned, it appears from perusal of the application that plaintiff has not specified the documents sought by him. In absence of specification of documents, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The documents which are sought by the petitioner may constitute the evidence and defence for the defendant/State and therefore, on this basis also, trial Court has rejected the application rightly so. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar v. Yamuna Devi [2011(1) M.P.L.J 129], while taking into consideration the scope of Order 11 rule 12 CPC and in para 10 clarified that the discretion of the documents in the possession of the party needs to be given unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how it is possible for him to ask for discov