IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF th ON THE 10 OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1356 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

DR. VINEET KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR R/O MALVIYAGANJ WARD, KATNI(IN FRONT OF MOHAN MEDICAL) , TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI A.K. JAIN-ADVOCATE)

AND

1. ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O SAWARKAR WARD(BACCHAN NAYAK GALI), KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O WARD SAWARKAR WARD SHAMBHU TALKIES ROAD ( IN FRONT OF ANAND MOBILE SHOP) KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SMT PRABHAWATI GUPTA W/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O MALVIYAGANJ WARD ( IN GRONT OF MOHAN MEDICAL) KATNI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SMT KIRTI GUPTA D/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA W/O SHRI RAJESH KASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O RAGHUVEER APARTMENT 2ND FLOOR POTHI GALI JAAGNNAATH ROAD GANDHIBAGH NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

5. SMT JYOTI GUPTA D/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS GUPTA W/O DR SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL Signature Not Verified GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O J.J.

HOSPITAL TORWA BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

27.2.2024 passed in C.S. No.101-A/2019 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Katni whereby the application moved on behalf of petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 14 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration partition and separate possession mainly on the ground that between petitioner and respondents or the family members, there are some joint properties which ought to have been partitioned between them, however, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that two properties mentioned in these paragraphs were purchased by him from his own sources but in chief examination plaintiff made a contrary statement wherein he stated that these properties were purchased by the joint family. He further submits the defendant/petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Rule 14 of the CPC for issuance of direction to plaintiff to file relevant documents regarding his income before the court.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents opposed the application and learned trial court after considering the arguments of both the parties by order dated 27.2.2024 dismissed the application mainly on the ground that this application has been moved at the time of cross examination of the plaintiff therefore, at this stage plaintiff cannot be directed to produce the documents or make any Signature Not Verified disclosure in respect of income.

4. Considering the fact that the suit is pending at the stage of cross examination of plaintiff and the petitioner/defendant will have full opportunity to cross examine plaintiff in respect of contradictory statement made by plaintiff in plaint as well as in the chief examination and there are some other provisions to demand the documents from plaintiff, if he accepts in cross examination, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner/defendant to put all the questions to the plaintiff during cross examination and if it is brought on record that the plaintiff is in possession of documents in respect of his income and the documents are relevant and required for just decision of the case, the petitioner will be at liberty to move appropriate application afresh during cross examination of the plaintiff.

5. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(VINAY SARAF)

JUDGE P/-

Signature Not Verified