IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 11 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6352 of 2025 MRS. POOJA AGARWAL Versus VARANASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhay Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Tapan Bathre Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER By way of this petition, the petitioner has called into question the order Annexure P/5 dated 09.10.2025 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for calling the audit report, shareholder register, Director register, notice register, minute book, meeting register, asset register, title-deed register of the respondent/defendant company for financial year 2022-2023 and 2023-24 and minute book and proceeding book from 01-01-2023 to 31-12-2023 has been rejected by the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit filed for declaring the sale deeds executed by the petitioner to be null and void on the grounds that the sale-deeds were got executed from the petitioner/plaintiff under threat and coercion.

3. It is the case of petitioner/plaintiff that 2 sale-deeds were of Rs.

30.00 lakhs each and the third of Rs. 20.00 lakhs i.e. total of Rs. 80.00 lakhs Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR have been got executed from the petitioner under threat and coercion and the consideration of Rs. 80.00 lakhs as contained in the sale-deeds is at much lower side as compared to market value of the said property which is more than 3 crores and also that even the stated consideration of Rs. 80.00 lakhs has not been actually paid to the petitioner and the sale-deeds are totally sham and fraudulent documents.

4. The petitioner has made specific contention in the case that the 3 sale-deeds mention the amount to be paid to the petitioner by various cheques and RTGS transactions, which she disputes by saying that no such RTGS transactions were made and she did not receive any amount by such cheques.

5. The counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff had tried to project by way of paragraph 9 of written statement to say that the cheques have not been given to the petitioner because in the said paragraph 9 of written statement it has been mentioned that if the petitioner has willfully not encashed the cheques then the defendant is ready and willing to pay the amount if it is still outstanding.

6. The petitioner seeks to call for a number of documents of the record of the respondent-company only to show that she has not received the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 80.00 lakhs. The trial court has held that to prove that she has not received the alleged consideration of Rs. 80.00 lakhs, it is not required to call for the number of documents which are being required by the petitioner/ plaintiff and this fact can be proved even by any other documents.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

7. In the considered opinion of this court if the petitioner wanted to establish that she has not even received the alleged consideration of Rs. 80.00 lakhs as mentioned in the sale deeds, she could place her own bank statement to establish this fact and calling voluminous documents of the respondent-Company does not seem to be necessary for that purpose and this Court in is agreement with the logic and reasoning adopted by the trial court.

8. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the impugned order Annexure P/5, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR